Commons:Deletion requests/File:The user against the promotion, justification and propagation homosexuality.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The user against the promotion, justification and propagation homosexuality.jpg

Inflammatory/hateful title, seems to be used exclusively by bigoted users on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. There are other images that can represent Anti-LGBT+ Sentiment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Delete uk:Шаблон:Користувач проти пропагування, виправдання і афішування ЛГБТ seems to be the source of this. The image was added by user:Green Zero. Commons shouldn't be used to spread hate. Multichill (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 Keep Its not a hate, its freedom of speech. Any person can to say for or against about anything. — Green Zero обг 20:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Wikimedia is not a platform for soapboxing, and is supportive of its LGBT+ users. If you created a version of this with a “no” symbol and the file name “this user is against the promotion, justification, and propagation interracial adoption” you’d be ripped to shreds as a bigot pretty quickly. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep the file, maybe change the title, as per — User:Green Zero and COM:NOTCENSORED. User:Zezen (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

irrelevant to the topic

Additional arguments, context or comments: Fairytale upload 2 (Resorting to some tu quoque:) compare it with the much more (objectively) "inflammatory/hateful" Muhammad controversy or Charlie Hebdo related files and their treatment in Commons, where many people died for this very idea. Or another upload of Green Zero's which is "hateful to the up direction" (or maybe to fairytales?). (Speaking of which, I have noted that the nominator declares that "Wikipedia is not censored" in their enwiki userbox and seems to be game for "depravity, and vulgarity [which are] always welcome here" themselves in Commons, so I am doubly puzzled about this set of nominations). The argument that "Wikimedia is not a platform for soapboxing" - let me BOOMERANG this too: the nominator is soapboxing about this topic and this set of files. Moreover, they have also been engaging in active direct measures to Right these Great Wrongs cross-wiki. (Sometimes such Meta and interwiki context is needed.) Yours: innately bigoted, depraved, vulgar, messy and worse Zezen (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC) NOTCENSORED only applies to articles and the gist of it is that offensive material will not be removed if it is useful for educationally illustrating something (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Broter/Ban_on_Muslim_immigration for an example). It doesn’t apply to userboxes that, intentionally or not, cause disruption in the community by singling out demographics as “less than” the “normal” majority. And the whole “depravity and vulgarity” thing is a joke. Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) The attempt to remove the anti-LGBT box manually was a clumsy misinterpretation of policy. The supposed “soapboxing” is a civil discussion about creating a cross-wiki multilingual outreach organization to avoid faux pas like the one above. Dronebogus (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Citing loosely related incidents, w:whataboutism, and criticizing your opponent in a manner unrelated to their point are all obvious logical fallacies and weaken rather than strengthen your arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Meta first: indeed, the latter argument is ad hominem, @Dronebogus and let us desist from using any, hence my caveat about the nature of my tu quoque hereinabove. Thus, my Boomerang 3: what is the use of your resorting to ad hominem in your: "[you were] banned from enwiki, [...] so you’re one to talk about tu quoque in regards to disreputable behavior" etc. on my Commons Talk, further to my vote and the explanation above? (See also my fuller answer therein, as it is out of scope for this nomination.) Here (or anywhere ever, I hope) I had not used the term "disreputable behaviour" to anybody but myself or impugned their character or Wikipedia standing, resorting to CIR or like TLAs, but yes: I did elaborate the self-declared campaign related to this nomination, to provide the necessary context (the URLs), which the nominator failed to disclose. More ad rem: you are wrong claiming that "NOTCENSORED only applies to articles". It also applies to Commons, to wit (the emphasis mine): "Wikimedia Commons may host material that some users may find objectionable, distasteful, or offensive for various reasons", "may cause offence to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons", [so Commons may host all unless it] "falls outside the normal permitted Wikimedia Commons scope", or "fail[s] the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose". It is very educational - it shows that some people do not like flag or two. Another self-conscious exempli gratia, the policy aside, do thus analyze the log of e.g. File:Mohammed.jpg (a file and concept which many more people hate and protest) and the related specific Commons policy from years ago that (the physical victims aside) resulted in SanFranBans of a campaigning admin or two (contact me on my Talk for details). Or check this hilarious "admins keep away" userbox (not mine either), which I had "rescued" about a year ago and put to good use in a topical local wiki essay of mine. Bows to all here. Zezen (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC), still depraved, atrocious, disgusting, bigoted and worse, and accidentally userboxless on all the wikis since 2020 - the only one I can remember, uploaded around 2015, was about being "subscribed to Elsevier's ScienceDirect through The Wikipedia Library" ;) Zezen (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC) If I’m not mistaken you were banned for persistent anti-LGBT bias and Antisemitic behavior, and now you’re expecting people to believe you’re not continuing that pattern here on Commons? Dronebogus (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete User pages shouldn't be used to propagate hate against a class of people.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Not only it's hate speech, it, and the discussion around it seems also to be a violation of Universal Code of Conduct so hard, that it should warrant a global lock for the uploader. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• • If you’re referring to the above off-topic argument then that would also be the fault of a user who was banned from enwiki for persistent anti-LGBT bias and Antisemitic behavior who also clearly hasn’t learned anything since then. Dronebogus (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

    I've confused them to be the same user at first, it seems. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Hate speech is not protected speech; this is clearly a violation of the Universal Code of Conduct — OwenBlacker (talk; please ping me in replies) 23:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep. First of all: I do not share the views against the promotion, justification and propagation homosexuality. However, there are two possible uses of this file.
  • First of all, it is a nice illustration of en:LGBT rights opposition and related topics, and we have multiple equally symbolic images on other topics (e.g. File:Anti-Ukrainian.svg). They are not nice to representiatives of respectively LGBT or Ukrainians, but they do illustrate real movements targeting these groups. Wikipedians did not invent LGBT rights opposition, it exists no matter we like it or not.
  • Secondly, Ukrainian Wikipedia is traditionally tolerant to people announcing their views on talk pages, at least that helps to clearly understand in which topics these people have strong opinions and we should check their edits for NPOV biases. And these works on the entire political spectrum, say, Ukrainian Wikipedia also has uk:Шаблон:Прихильник комуністичних ідей despite Communist symbols being banned in Ukraine. The views announced in uk:Шаблон:Користувач проти пропагування, виправдання і афішування ЛГБТ are quite widespread, say, they match en:Hungarian anti-LGBT law. I do not like the fact that such views are popular, however, I cannot deny the fact that a significant number of people (including a significant number of Wikipedians) share them. It's better when people warn you of their intolerant views, much easier to understand them than if they hide these views.

  If the mere mention of LGBT rights opposition violates UCoC, then, well, we should ban all people displaying this flag, delete related articles and we would have an illusion of problem solved. If we, however, accept that the existence of LGBT rights opposition is a fact that does not depend on us, I don't see a reason to delete this file. Exactly the same way as we have multiple other anti- like File:Anti-Ukrainian.svg, File:Anti-Catholicism.svg and all other anti-. We probably just need to rename this file to something like File:Anti-LGBT-flag.jpg and keep it together with others — NickK (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • NickK makes three good points here— it’s a good illustration, it’s similar to many other files that aren’t controversial, and it’s arguably only making the anti-LGBT people look worse. But the slippery slope argument is gratuitous. User content is held to much stricter standards than articles (though not to the level if instantly banning them for this). * There’s a difference between articles on homophobia and discriminatory crap on your userpage. It’s is violating the Universal Code of Conduct whether you like it or not, and since Wikimedia is a private organization it doesn’t have to abide by any sort of “freedom of speech” law. Dronebogus (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• <references> insert here — Yuri V (t•c), 19:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

  • @Dronebogus: I would doubt this. If File:The user against the promotion, justification and propagation homosexuality.jpg is offensive against sexual orientation, gender identity, File:Anti-Ukrainian.svg is offensive against national, (...) ethnic and cultural background, while File:Anti-Catholicism.svg is offensive against religious (...) background. I don't understand why being against LGBT rights is any different from being against ethnic, cultural or religious rights. I do understand that there is an ongoing discussion in the American society about LGBT rights, thus the topic of LGBT rights opposition is particularly painful in the US, while in other areas of the world topics of ethnic, cultural or religious rights can be more painful due to different local contexts. I really say we need one standard, if having an image symbolising opposition to a sexual orientation-related movement is not allowed, neither should be images symbolising opposition to ethnic, cultural or religious identity-related movements.

    I don't think that this is the right place for a freedom of speech discussion. Wikimedia Commons has no authority over freedom of speech elsewhere. What we are discussing is whether this image has its place on Wikimedia Commons. We have 49 pictures in Category:Anti-LGBT logos, still there is a problem with only this one. Is it any different from others? No, it is visually similar, for example, to File:Anti-LGBT.svg, File:Anti Gay and Lesbian movements sign.gif, File:Anty LGBT.png or File:Utilisateur no mariage homo.jpg. Some of them are used in the main namespace, for example, on ka:ჰომოფობია. There was a previous discussion resulting in keeping Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anti-LGBT.svg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anty LGBT.png.

    Thus if the Commons decides that it cannot host any pictures that depict views violating UCoC, then deleting this one would make sense. But as long as this picture depicts a notable and really existing, want we this or not, LGBT rights opposition movement, and as long as Commons does not have views-based deletion criteria, there is no reason to delete this image — NickK (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Yeah, you’re right. I’m more just trying to get rid of userboxes that clearly are in violation of the code, and lacking the multilingual infrastructure to do this I’m resorting to proxy methods. That’s why I’ve proposed a multilingual project to work on systematically removing this sort of content. Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  > "then, well, we should ban all people displaying this flag, delete related articles and we would have an illusion of problem solved"

  I would actually point that conflating the templates with a view that is expressed outright with "related articles" is not a great point. The en-wiki essay, en:WP:NONAZIS (which, right, is not used on uk-wiki) does a fine differentiation in that, and prohibits the expression of some ideas; but doesn't forbid neutral articles on these views. This needs to be kept in mind.

  However, what I wrote is not an argument against the renaming, it may be renamed if the discussion will come to that. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Sleeps-Darkly: Firstly, this image can illustrate a neutral article on these views. Secondly, well, there is a difference between having some views, displaying these views and harassing other users based on these views. Harassing LGBT+ users is not acceptable, but it does not mean all users displaying these views do harass LGBT+ Wikimedians (some of them might do - and usually receive sanctions for that - but most don't). Don't forget that we talking about a country where only 7% of population support LGBT and 47% are openly anti-LGBT (still way better than in 2013 when 63% of population considered LGBT+ people as immoral who need to be cured). Thus if you label roughly half of the population as nazis (and we are talking about only one type of views)... well, good luck building a new community after destroying the existing ones. Ukrainian community is obviously not an example of tolerance, but portraying it as nazi is too much — NickK (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  And I would actually advise against going this way. See, the file probably can be used this way after being renamed. I should stress again, the NONAZIS (and UCoC) points that some ideas should not be expressed, not that they can't be held. Considering this, the argument about "47%"/"half the population" is not really going to be accepted. Why? Around 47 users at this moment have this image included on their page, inside the template that states their view outright (important caveat in the NONAZIS, mind. the NONAZIS differentiates between stating the view and displaying the imagery - and I need to stress this difference again).

  Do you really believe that "47" users represent like half of the Ukrainian Wikipedia? Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, definitely not. I am pretty sure many users with homophobic views do not express them publicly. Pretty much the same way as I could have displayed the opposite template on my user page, but I don't do it as I personally do not want to use such opinion templates. The ratio is pretty accurate though.

  What I am not comfortable with is the following approach. We know that user A has homophobic views, but we tell them: if you want to continue participating, please hide the fact that you are a homophobe. Will they stop being a homophobe because they have hidden it? Obviously not. Will it be better if we would be unable to publicly say that A has homophobic views (because UCoC, attack using a stereotype)? I don't think so.

  I think this page is absolutely not the right place for this debate and it should probably move to some UCoC policy discussion on Meta. Deleting this single file will not solve anything as long as that template on Ukrainian Wikipedia can use any other image from Category:Anti-LGBT logos — NickK (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  If your community decides its most important, insurmountable belief is that LGBT people are gross then it doesn’t need to be on Wikimedia anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep of course. I was very surprised how much here hatred towards those who have other views, have freedom of speech, defend own rights. I mean a hate speech of Sleeps-Darkly. If somebody is against loud music from midnight to morning, he loves music, but against the noise. — Yuri V (t•c), 22:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC).

• “If somebody is against loud music from midnight to morning, he loves music, but against the noise” What’s that supposed to mean? And nothing Sleeps Darkly said is remotely hate speech! Dronebogus (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 DeleteImage used to promote homophobia on Wikipedia.Bradford (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete It is totally a violation of the universal code of conduct Karlalhdz (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this graphic is realistically useful for an educational purpose - Commons:Deletion_policy#Not_educationally_useful. This is also evidenced by the current use only on user pages to share with the world their views hostile to homosexual people. Additionally, on Commons there are over a dozen variants of crossed out LGBT flags that can be used as illustrations in articles on homophobia, in what way is this one better? In addition, in my opinion, the title of the file is not informative, it does not say what the file contains, and it only serves to share views that are hostile to homosexual people.

I think the minimum thing to do is to change the name to a more neutral one in accordance with the Neutral_point_of_view and I would even recommend  Delete it because is not useful for educational purposes. Grudzio240 (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

off-topic and inappropriate comments

There are no contradiction between support rights LGBT against agressive propagation against agressive propagation — Yuri V (t•c), 19:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC). do not do this again user:Yuri V. or you will be reported — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dronebogus (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC); signed — Yuri V (t•c), 22:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) I fail to see your logic unless you’re saying something akin to “I don’t mind gays as long as they act straight in public”, which is still homophobia. Dronebogus (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) @Dronebogus and Sleeps-Darkly: Several times I heard someone was clinging to the handsome young man (no-gay): "It is normal. It's okay. It's very nice. Try it. You will be very pleased." There are known cases of rough violence. Are you for or against LGBT violence, propagation, agression? — Yuri V (t•c), 10:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC). Most lgbt people are not trying to rape people or beat them up any more than straight people. Dronebogus (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC) This is a very weird question and borders on being inappropriate. Please do not tag me again with questions like these. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I know I’m not neutral here, but I’m seeing an emerging consensus against keeping— the raw votes are 6D:4K, one of the K votes is the uploader, and all but one of the keep votes have been incoherent misinterpretations of COMMONS:NOTCENSORED and uses of the W:Chewbacca defense. Dronebogus (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

Keep The freedom of speech is fundamental in a democracy. So we have a right to express our rejection of homosexual propaganda. The similiar images are quite common here, see Category:SVG Anti logos. --A1 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Wikimedia is not a democracy, at least in the traditional sense— it’s a consensus democracy, not a 1-person-1-vote democracy. Free speech on Wikimedia must comply with the Universal Code of Conduct, which forbids hostile behavior towards people because of their sexual orientation. Wikimedia also isn’t a soapbox, so no you don’t have any explicit right to “express your rejection of homosexual propaganda” either. Dronebogus (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Nevertheless the freedom of speech is valuable for Wikipedia. At least it is my right to express here that any kind of censorship is inapropriate here. A1 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Apparently you missed the part: “However, the statement "Wikimedia Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside the normal permitted Wikimedia Commons scope.” Dronebogus (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete. While there might be potential narrow use cases for this file, the fact is, that it is clearly used to advocate for the continued oppression of a group, under the guise of 'its just an opinion, I too should be allowed to platform my opinion'. Ppl can think whatever they want, but to support certain things in user boxes is something else, and we shouldn't allow Commons rules to be abused to facilitate this. If this were "I do not support black people" or "I do not support rights for jews" this discussion would have ended quickly already. NickK says: "I would doubt this. If File:The user against the promotion, justification and propagation homosexuality.jpg is offensive against sexual orientation, gender identity, File:Anti-Ukrainian.svg is offensive against national, (...) ethnic and cultural background, while File:Anti-Catholicism.svg is offensive against religious (...) background." And they ARE. They just aren't used to platform that particular point of view (to the same extend), and this image is and apparently the Ukrainian community doesn't want to take action, so that action falls on us. Its usages is a violation of the code of conduct, and the educational use of the image is only very theoretical and very narrow. Little is lost by deleting this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment discussion seems to have died and consensus appears to be 7D to 5K (not even factoring in the not-great reasoning of some of the K arguments and the fact that one is the uploader and another is a known disruptive user)— I think an admin should close this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments removed again
Comment There is no consensus for deletion: meta:don't vote on everything, w:WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. This file is agaist aggressive LGBT-propagation, against of discrimination of non-LGBT. I repeat (19:21, 22 January): there are no contradiction between the user supports rights LGBT and the user against agressive propagation. — Yuri V (t•c), 08:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC).

•  Delete This image is solely being used to support bigoted views on user infoboxes, which is outside of commons scope. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• In a way such things are helpful as they are easy pointers to help detect bigots and fascists, but at the end of the day WMF websites, all of them, are not intended to be tools for promoting one's social/political beliefs, and in particular not a place to be promoting the suppression of basic human rights, so I agree that  Delete is the correct outcome here, although it wouldn't surprise me if bigots trying to claim this is a free speech issue overwhelm this discussion and it is kept anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Not a ballot, any sane admin would kick them out for brigading and bad faith arguments unrelated to policy. Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep but move to a neutral, descriptive title. - Darwinek (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete - the file's title and usage indicate that it is not serving an educational purpose, and it is likely violating the Universal Code of Conduct. -M.nelson (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete as a UCOC violation.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)