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.
Against the spirit of wikipedia, A place that excludes editors based on anything violates the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. By all means create a place for woman but it is against the spirit to say "only this type of editor can join" RetΔrtist (разговор) 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it's okay to insert this here. Since the subject of the WMF non discrimination policy keeps coming up, I have asked for some advice from WMF re this. I hope we will here soon fromSiko (WMF). Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the time being, it serves as an experiment based on a discussion at the Wikimedia IdeaLab re a space for women, similar to spaces used on other projects (other languages). This subspace in my user space does not prevent any editor from editing in any space beside this subspace. I am replying from my phone and will return when I am next at my desk. Lightbreather (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An analogy suggested at the idealab, which may be flawed in general but valid in userspace, was that a women-only discussion forum would be like a table at a cafe, where a group of women are seated, talking. The claim was that a man shouldn't necessarily expect to be free to draw up a chair and join the group, as the group has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless they invite someone to join. In the context of the idealab discussion I had doubts about this reasoning because it seemed to me a discussion forum on an open wiki has no such expectation of privacy, however a page in a user's userspace does seem to have the right, at owner's option, to an expectation of privacy similar to that of a table at a cafe: those talking at the table should expect to be overheard, but might limit who is allowed to join the discussion.
For those who prefer citation of policy, here's a relevant passage from WP:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." Lightbreather has been polite about the experiment (not even, I believe, even removing comments considered out-of-place but merely moving them to a different page), so imho civility and AGF are satisfied as well, and I don't think the wider Wikipedian community should object. --Pi zero (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To counter on the terms of your analogy, I'd like to say that you have no right to force the cafe to provide you with a table. And also, a cafe is for the consumption of food and beverages, as well as discussion. An appropriate analogy, would be a chess cafe, a place where people come to play chess amongst each other at the tables. If people at the table are discussing backgammon, while not actually playing chess, the owner might ask them to leave, and ask them to go to a backgammon cafe, a place more appropriate for discussion of backgammon. Grognard Chess(talk) Ping when replying 03:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi zero: And also, to quote WP:User pages, it says that "if the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community." Policy does not specifically prevent removal of user talk page comments, but community consensus holds ultimate judgement over userspace. The community can come to a consensus for whatever reason it wants to on whether to delete this user page, as long as the consensus doesn't violate any other policies. Grognard Chess(talk) Ping when replying 03:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the wider community could, but seems to me it's being done civilly, appears it's being done in good faith (I don't think this appearance even requires assuming good faith), and since it's in userspace, I'd think private conversations would be more usual to allow than to disallow, so that it's not against the spirit of Wikipedia to allow it. Hence, as I said, I don't think the wider community should object. (It's not even the content being objected to, but rather the conversants.) ---Pi zero (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy is probably overtaxed by now anyway, but I might note that the analogy doens't extend very gracefully to likening Wikipedia to a chess cafe because, following the analogy, it's not a cafe at all; only certain side areas of Wikipedia are used for semi-private tables at all (userspace), and those areas also tend to have relatively greater flexibility of topic (not unlimited, of course, but in this case the intent seems to be that the discussion be about Wikipedia, so that calling it off-topic would be a bit of a stretch). Oh, and since you ask it, ping:Chess. --Pi zero (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any harm in this, nor any actual pointer to what policy it violates. The fact that people think the problem of "but it's exclusionary" is a bigger deal than the problem of Wikipedia's discussion venues being, at the very very most good-faith, implicitly biased towards a discussion style men are sociologically conditioned for, is a really good argument for its existence. Ironholds (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strong neutral without prejudice. I really can't see any reason why this should exist, and there are other places that can handle any discussion that could take place in the kaffeeklatsch better than in the kaffeeklatsch. Content dispute? Talk page of the articles. Behavior dispute? ANI, AN, civility noticeboard, user talk of the offending editor. Advice? Help desk, teahouse, #wikipedia-en-help, the {{help me}} template, even! Off topic discussion? Take it to an off topic forum. Discussion about Wikipedia? Village pump. There is literally nothing in the kaffeeklatsch that could not be better handled by another place already in existence on Wikipedia. It's like buying a swiss army knife when you already have a kit of full sized tools that you use often. The swiss army knife has a bunch of worse versions of the tools you already have, so there's no practical reason to use it, unless you don't use the full sized tools enough to justify maintaining them. And also, the hypothetical swiss army knife only works on around 10% of objects. Grognard Chess(talk) Ping when replying 05:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Show me that this page can do something that isn't redundant. I believe it can't do anything that isn't already covered by something else, but show me how this can do something other than something falling under WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK that isn't redundant. Grognard Chess(talk) Ping when replying 23:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just off the top of my head? everything. The places you've brought up are all places that are perfectly good places to go if we assume for a second that they are consistently accepting places that aren't drastically biased towards a form of interaction which is anathema to people who aren't from a demography sociologically conditioned to believe that might makes right. Unfortunately they are places run by, using processes written by, and populated by, people from that background, me included - and if you're reading this and about to come back with "but they're perfectly pleasant, non-intimidatory and non-adversarial places", please keep context in mind and realise that we're on a page consisting of 40kb of plaintext, all dedicated to an adversarial discussion of whether a user gets to run an experiment on improving how we interact on-wiki and how systemically biased our content and contributors are, in their userspace. A discussion that has so far featured off-wiki canvassing and harassment from the sort of people who populate KotakuInAction, and evaluations from users in good standing that any such experiment is "blatantly discriminative drivel", equivalent to tolerating racist bigotry, and "serves no purpose except to cause more division and disruption". This MfD, if nothing else (and there is a lot else) is a good argument for such a space being a good thing.
You can debate whether it's a good idea, sure - but this is a userspace experiment. If this MfD closes as keep, nothing is going to blow up. The wiki will not shut down. Indeed, I hope that it marks the start of a transition to an environment in which we actually recognise the biases that we have as individuals and a community, and work first to educate ourselves about the arguments in this space and then to, if not overcome those biases, at least stay quiet in situations where we know they come into play. I personally don't know how I feel about this as a safe-space (it's public, and could act as a single target for misogynists), and I've debated how I feel about the concept of gender-specific arenas in the past. But I stopped having those debates with myself when I realised that I was precisely the wrong demographic to be making any calls about whether such a space was necessary: I'm a middle-class white dude. I played life on easy mode.
TL;DR: you're asking the wrong person the wrong question. Let's start deferring to the people in the arena for expertise on what is necessary, not shouting from the peanut gallery. And on that note, I'm going to disengage from this MfD so I don't drown out precisely those people with my walls-of-text. Ironholds (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. I wouldn't object to a deletion request if the page were dormant or clearly being used for non-encyclopedic purposes, but it seems a little hasty considering that it's just getting off the ground. Let's come back to this in 6 months or so and see if the discussion has proven meaningful for supporting and retaining editors. Shii(tock)06:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right here. I predict it'll either be inactive, or a hub of unencyclopedic content. But who knows? It's had meta-discussions so far, and nothing else except for a discussion on cis and trans, which before now I thought was about fats. Grognard Chess(talk) Ping when replying 23:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not actively harming the encyclopedia anyway. So you say it is exclusionary, huh? The entire environment of Wikipedia has been proven time and time again to be a hostile environment for women, what's the problem with a women-centered discussion? Many other areas on Wikipedia have criteron for membership; AfC requires a certain number of registration days and AWB requires 500 edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit but this user subpage is not preventing anyone from editing articles (or even the subpage itself). In fact it is an alpha-test-phase version of a space that may very well in the future encourage women to edit more on Wikipedia, just like women's colleges in the real world. There exists a reason why there are women's colleges in the world, but very few women's colleges: Because women need it. This page is not even hidden to the public. Any and all people can open up the page, read what's going on, and not even have to have an account or join. There is no closed door here, no only-women-can-read. In fact, men can choose to edit this page; there is no technical restriction from doing so - evident by the nominator's ability to send this to MfD. The only reason a man would chose not to edit the page would be out of respect for Lightbreather, because it is in her userspace, and we respect people's userspaces like that.
The nominator states that he is willing to allow for a space for women to exist, but how can a women's space be created if men are allowed to be present? How can there be a true women's space when men are present - wouldn't that just become a place for humans instead of women? I find this proposition confusing and illogical. How can us women editors have a supportive women's environment if men are allowed to butt in (and we are not allowed to keep them out or even respectfully ask them to avoid commenting?) It is impossible for it to become a true "women's space" when men are there.
Finally, one may argue that it adds no benefit to the project, but what's wrong with it neutrally just sitting there in a userspace subpage, then? There are no policies linked in the nomination to advocate for deletion. We do have things like the Gender Gap Task Force for these kinds of related things, but it is hardly a women's only space and it has been touched by Arb so it is obviously a contentious place. It is definitely not similar to a Teahouse-way of interacting with women editors. The Teahouse is for interacting with newbies, the Kaffeklatsch can be for interacting with the very small percentage of women editors that are on the project. Those who want to discuss the uselessness of things can first investigate the numerous WikiProjects that are either defunct or inactive, and then ask themselves why those have not been subject to MfD. It is ironic that Chess above mentions the Swiss Army knife working around 10% of objects, because... well... Wikipedia only has about... 10% of women, so of course it would only benefit them! Now, the real question is: What percentage of women would this benefit? — kikichugirlspeak up!07:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm flatly unconvinced that the space presents any real disruption or harm to building an encyclopedia. Not convinced the space is a slippery slope of any kind. This seems like a good time to remind folks that Wikimania 2014 (and probably previous years) had a meeting slot intended for editors who identified as women. Was it disruptive or did it present harm to the conference participants to learn about and help improve Wikimedia and other open-source projects? Nope. I suspect that the people like me who could not go to it thought, "Oh hey, I'm really glad they have that because they're bringing perspectives to the table that I probably don't have, and I appreciate more diversity in perspectives rather than fewer." I also suspect the event allowed a lot of women to meet and start sharing, building, and implementing ideas over the past six months. What is the benefit of prematurely shooting down a space that has the potential to do exactly the same thing? With that said, I agree with Shii, if the space does not facilitate constructive discussions over the next several months, we could consider marking the space as historical (I don't think it's necessary to delete the space). I, JethroBTdrop me a line07:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. While there exists the potential for this page to become disruptive by holding content discussions there, for example, this is currently not happening and no harm is being done. As long as the page is well-managed I don't foresee any immediate problems. I would oppose moving to Wikipedia: space but where it is now is fine. BethNaught (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OH NOES, THE WIMMINZ IS OPPRESSING US DISCRIMINATORILY! Whatever will we do? I guess we could take having 90% of the population in a consensus- and voting-driven environment as a consolation prize, but the fight isn't over. Never Forget. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this is precisely why I don't take shit like this serious. I think that the more they wail about an unequal footing and then do things to actually enhance that unequal footing is a whole circus that is fun to watch but short on common sense or anything coming close to improving the issues. Hypocritical is what I like to call it, women are equal if they choose to be, no man can take that away from them. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because they certainly seem to be trying to. What use is this theoretical equality of yours when there's no practical equality? When we have (pardon the language) shitshows like the GGTF or Gamergate cases, in which it's made abundantly clear that a vast amount of off-wiki coordination, harassment and canvassing occurs in any situation where someone has the temerity to suggest there might be a problem? There's an entire subreddit dedicated to this stuff, including a thread aimed at this precise proposal. Does that sound like something that can be overcome by just trying harder? And does it seem at all cognitively dissonant to you that you're saying that men and women are fundamentally equal on the projects, but you only expect one of those groups to have to actively throw effort into maintaining their equal footing? Theoretical equality looks like nothing explicitly saying "no [people in subgroup] allowed". Practical equality means people in that subgroup not having to put disproportionate effort - or indeed, any effort - in. Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that part of this scenario is the originator is part of the problem, get caught in lies, manipulation and various other activites and yes you are likely to garner a following. Let me understand, women only groups are ok, what about men only groups? Those must by extension be ok too....see the problem? It enhances the issue and does nothing to ameloriate it, it actually widens that divide. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's ridiculous to have any history month, history is history, it's not white, black, purple yellow or whatever, it's history. In regards to off wiki harrassment let's not delude ourselves that women don't do the same things, [[2]] I wonder if the originator of this pledge is on there? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest, as a male, that the tone of Hell in a Bucket's posts above is precisely what leads us to have such a small proportion of female editors. So keep this at least while discussions are continuing. --Bduke(Discussion)01:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepDelete It may or not be against the "spirit" of Wikipedia but I don't see it currently contravening any policy (and I don't see any cited here). Of course, it has the potential to become disruptive and issues such as WP:CANVASS need to be kept an eye on so a "keep" is without prejudice to a possible later switch to "delete" On a personal note, I very much hope it stays because what's appeared on it so far has been the most fantastically hilarious entertainment. The level of unconscious self-parody is priceless. DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to delete. NE Ent (below) has pointed out a spdcific policy (albeit WMF rather than community) that this contravenes. As a result I don't see that this is tenable. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are other responses to NE Ent's assertion, but my view is that it's nonsense to assert that this "is clearly against WMF's nondiscrimation policy", because all sorts of minority interest groups operate within schools and corporations that are obviously themselves committed to nondiscrimination. --doncram
But anyhow, let WMF legal consider the issue, and in 2 seconds say there is no problemo (I anticipate), rather than try to decide the legality by mob decision-making here. --doncram16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no absolute rights for the user. WP:UP#OWN: "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." DeCausa (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's unclear why this is being nominated. (Just kidding. It's all too clear.) I think it's silly to nominate it for deletion as it's a fairly inactive and new page, and is not posing any problems I can see. Despite what combative hand-wringers may claim, there's nothing to justify its deletion yet. It's also being targeted by off-site campaigning via Reddit (yawn). Ongepotchket (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I can't support this by adding a "keep" vote, WP:IDLI isn't a reason to delete. the Wikipedia:User pages guideline says that users may remove content from their user pages except for a few specific items (this would be clearer if it were a talk page, where the guideline specifically mentions that a user can remove unwelcome posts, and can ask certain users not to post, and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says "User talk pages are almost never deleted"). The wording of the guideline is unclear (in my opinion) about whether this includes user subpages, or only a user's main page and talk page, and so it seems that at this time the page isn't contravening the guideline.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I understand it, the page was set up as an experiment related to the larger IdeaLab proposal for a women's space. It's doing no harm and I can't see any good reason to delete it. Sarah (SV)(talk)18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why we ought to take the opinion of someone who relished the idea of killing a female by stabbing her in the throat with a pen seriously? EricCorbett20:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you essentially have two options there. One, you can assume that I am not, in fact, the same eejit that I was...cripes, must be around four years ago now - in which case, your rhetorical question is moot. Or two, you can persist in believing that I am, in fact, the same eejit that I was around four years ago, in which case, here's a rhetorical question right back at you: how does it feel to be more socially conservative than that sort of person? Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Men are not technically or even physically restricted from editing this page. Anyone can literally click edit because it's not sysop-protected. The truth is men and women are still not equal. It is not sexist, it is actively fighting sexism - and in order to do that, sexism must go away. Men can still read. Men can even click "edit" (but since it's Lightbreather's userspace, the men will probably be reverted). Please point to some indicator that there is sexism on this page that is actively harming the project, because I am not seeing it. — kikichugirlspeak up!21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may be about a userpage but if it is allowed to stay it sets a precedent for the aforementioned and blatantly sexist "WikiProject Women" and should therefor be deleted, Unless a "WikiProject Men", That only allows Men to join is allowed this is completely unfair. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I recall that in the not too distant past a project that selected membership on the basis of editors having written a GA/FA was deleted. The argument was that every page should be open to everyone to contribute to. What's the difference here? EricCorbett20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have had reservations about this "experiment" since I noticed participation being canvassed by the user on a number of other user talk pages; I'm surprised it wasn't nominated for deletion earlier. As a female, I find the perceived "necessity" for a "safe place" for females sexist, unnecessary and pointy - we are all editors, regardless of gender. The page serves no purpose except to cause more division and disruption. SagaciousPhil - Chat21:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't especially like the idea of "pledges" and I worry about presenting this as a safe space in an environment that is inherently "unsafe" in the sense that's meant here. But it's absurd to look at a userpage whose audience is 10% of the Wikipedia editor base and react by screaming "no fair!" because the other 90% will feel excluded. If this creates division and disruption, it's due to precisely the same types of behavior that caused the desire for this page in the first place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a good-faith attempt to address issues around the gender gap, and for women editors to network (for want of a better word) with other women editors. Sometimes the testosterone-driven nature of Wikipedia can make people (and not just women!) uncomfortable, so I can see the sense in having a dedicated area where the tone is a bit lower. I would be concerned if the page were being used for substantive discussion of policy or anything else that needs input from more than one demographic of the community, but a place for people to discuss things informally is not disruptive to the encyclopaedia. For as long as it continues to be undisruptive (if that's even a word!) and to serve some legitimate purpose towards the enhancement of the encyclopaedia, we should keep it around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's in userspace and its only in its earliest days. I think the comments about "Why isn't there male only pages," miss a point. Nobody's ever (I think, correct if wrong) expressed the desire or need for male only wiki-forums, except when something like this comes up and they do it to prove a point. People actually feel a need for a female only space on Wikipedia, and while I'm unsure about the whole Wikiproject Women idea, I think something in userspace is a good solution for now. My main worry is that it could get quite nasty if people start ignoring the rule about not speaking negatively about non members (I like the broad way the rule is set out to avoid loop holing though). @Lightbreather: Could you perhaps put something on the pledge page, noting that if someone is feeling attacked by members of the forum, they can leave a message on your talk page? Bosstopher (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion on whether or not this should be kept or deleted, but I do have worries about possible POV editing from the group associated with this page. If kept, it should at least be independently monitored to ensure there's no efforts arising from it that would lead to another arbcom case like the recent GGTF and GamerGate ones. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I would be more "okayish" (barely) with this if this policy were applied equally, but that would also mean tolerating racist wiki editors who want Whites-only editing of their page etc., and I think that would fly in the face of the Wikipedia principle that everyone ought to be able to edit the encyclopedia. It's in the very tagline of the Wikipedia icon. 71.185.74.31 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The user spaces are all part of the Wikipedia project, and don't "belong" to the individual users. (WP:UP#OWN) By logical deduction, discrimination on any page in the project is discrimination in the project.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that deduction is correct, per my analogy of minority student groups being encouraged on university campuses (expressed elsewhere on this page), and per discussion at wikimedia(?) idea-labs proposal for the WikiProject Women, where WMF sees no concern. This is a side question that is better answered by WMF legal (e.g. they can simply say they see no problem whatsoever), rather than by crowd consensus of non-lawyers. --doncram16:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work (and kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a small thought experiment: Imagine that the Kaffeeklatsch page is a lovely place to contribute to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to contribute to is actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among users is unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that keep me off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone might come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not related to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous goals. I think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her compatriots were banned. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought experiment, Hell in a Bucket, is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase the implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how compatriotism might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And I write this as someone bitterly opposed to Lightbreather's https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women, for all the reasons everyone above has stated; it's a horrible, discriminatory idea, that sets a terrible precedent. The difference here is that this is unofficial, unenforced, and user space. We have traditionally allowed people wider latitude with their own user page, including asking people not to post on their user talk page, etc. Here, Lightbreather has asked 90% of all editors not to post on this page in her user space. Not friendly, but should be allowed. --GRuban (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know this, but for clarity, men are only kept away from the Kaffeeklatsch page and haven't been banned from her whole space. BethNaught (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear. Since I wrote as much ("this page in her user space"), I do, in fact know this. Since you wrote as much, it's also clear that I'm sure you know that I know this. Therefore, for clarity, I'm sure that you're sure that I'm sure. Clear? Surely clear? Clearly sure? Sure. --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I originally considered nominating this for MFD myself and then thought better of it. Like GRuban, I am adamantly opposed to WikiProject Women, but I'm willing to see how this goes in userspace, since there is precedent for editors requesting that others not post on their talk pages. As a subpage in userspace, this should get more latitude. If time shows that this page is used for a) social media, b) editor-bashing or male-bashing, c) content discussions (beyond discussions of lists of articles that need to be created) or d) coordinated efforts to push a POV, then I will lead the way in bringing it back up for deletion. I have my doubts that this will be useful at all (the people most advocating for it aren't using it), and perhaps the creator will realize that after some time passes. Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Initially I was leaning to 'del' as divisive, but reading some male arguments in this page, I understand why women would want to insulate themselves a bit. While Wikipedia is definitely way more civilized than most open forums ("open" I mean without dictatorial moderation), still women do have more sensitivity to the tone of the message. Unfortunately careless male parlance seems to be ingrained in culture. Once I watched a youtube of a TV discussion between a Muslim Islamic scholar and an atheist scholar, and I was appalled at how the latter, a leading and respected scholar allowed himself a dismissive, nonchalant tone, bordering with rudeness. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I highly encourage you to amend to read that some women have more sensitivity to the tone of the message - just as some men do. This is not a characteristic of all women. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write "all women". I wrote "women". Like in: "women have higher life expectancy than men". And if you sincerely think the word "some" would be a life saver, I highly encourage you to review some Wikipedia advice, starting with WP:WEASEL (unless you were simply ironic). Staszek Lem (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is a profound disconnect between the stated purpose of the Kaffeeklatsch and its implementation. The apparent purpose is to have a page where female editors are not exposed to incivility. If you want to exclude incivility, just explicitly exclude incivility. After all, women are perfectly capable of being uncivil. Specifically prohibit questioning the veracity of anyone's claim of having experienced sexual harassment, as that seems to be the majority of what you want to avoid. (To prevent abuse of this protection, naming a perpetrator would need to also be forbidden.) Excluding a gender creates a combative atmosphere from the start, but simply being a page of nice people makes a very unappealing target for trolls. Rhoark (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The community as a whole excludes incivility. The problem is that what is uncivil is fuzzy; there is no boolean "civil/uncivil" test, and it is perfectly possible to be simultaneously polite and highly disruptive. If the test was based on something as subjective as civility, the result wouldn't be a well-functioning system, it would be a system immediately gamed by the people pointed at this MfD off-wiki, and those people on-wiki who both oppose it and haven't yet reached emotional maturity, to create drama and then, on any backlash, immediately accelerate it to AN/I and suchlike in an effort to cast a fog. Call me cynical, but if the community could be trusted to appropriately deal with civility, and civility was the only concern here, the proposal would never have been made. Given that it has, at least 50% of your premise is moot. Ironholds (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A user can moderate their own user space to a different standard of civility than the project as a whole, which is the point of doing anything at all. I'm not so naive as to propose wiki admin processes as a tool to maintain civility. If the purpose of the space is not just enhanced civility, it becomes much more difficult to assume good faith. Rhoark (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is but an experiment. I am pretty sure that if everything goes well, the "girls-only" club may be expanded; eg., to "invitation-only", and so on. On the other hand, if it will be swarmed by women "perfectly capable of being uncivil", it just as well may self-disband or shut down, as it happened with a number of well-meaning wikiclubs. Wikipedia:Esperanza comes to my mind. By the way, I would like to notice that "it is my user page" is a weak argument. User pages have been deleted all the time, if their content decided to be detrimental. A possible scenario: Happily married couples would start wanting to talk together in this page. Hardcore "single ladies" would strongly oppose: "Go create your own 'Club Happy Ever After'; obviously our problems are no longer yours". Heats up, blows off. One may think of dozens of scenarios. But at the moment let's think AGF. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll not argue for or against deletion. I think there could be utility for a women's only space on the one hand, but on the other, I'm not entirely sure whether it fits within policy as enforceable to being only women. That being said, I have concerns with the pledge requirements. Since Lightbreather really wanted those, and it is in her userspace, I just removed myself once it became clear the pledge would not change. LadyofShalott17:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is exclusive but not discriminatory in an unfair way. I support any safe spaces where non-male editors can meet and talk without being the odd one out in a room full of guys shouting at each other.--Battleofalma (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not support the IdeaLab proposal as written and I do not support the membership requirements for this page and so won't !vote to keep the page. However, this page is in user space and doesn't seem to be violating user space or other guidelines. I think it would be best to revisit this page in six months or so and to delete it if any of the following apply: a) the IdeaLab proposal is approved and set up or running; b) this page receives little or no traffic; or c) this page receives traffic and the content clearly violates guidelines. Ca2james (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What harm exactly is this posing being in user-space? The proposed idea is active on Wikimedia so it should be kept until a decision is made regarding that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are the issues here?
WP:OWN seems to be the biggest one. The existence of the page is not a problem, the belief that one has the power to exclude others from it is. We had a similar issue where it was believed that one of the political WikiProjects was to be composed solely of advocates of that position, rather than those interested in writing about it.
What would happen, I wonder, if a person of male or indeterminate gender were to make some apposite and telling point? Would they be reverted and reported, perhaps to AN/I? Thus this idea would seem to trample WP:AGF with a vengeance.
Thirdly any significant conversation (if it were to move beyond the naval gazing required to define its constituency) would need to be replicated elsewhere so that the entire community could enter the discussion. This would appear to be provoking breaches of WP:FORK.
And finally to restrict the editing of a page to a specific demographic group is another nail in the coffin of "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit" and another case of WP:INSTRUCTION CREEP.
So despite some sympathy for the idea behind it, my !vote will be:
Delete: All the best: RichFarmbrough, 19:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
Mark as historical I have changed my vote, I think there is significant material on this page which should be preserved. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC).
Weak Keep I don't feel that strongly about it, but I see this as an extension of user talk space, but with a limited number of contributors. Now it's generally accepted that in user talk (and user) pages that you can ban users, and remove edits, and generally keep it as you wish, obviously within the limits. Now I don't really see how this contradicts this. Yes it could be seen as sexist, but at least it is a single user's views, not expressed outside of her userspace. And it's a lot better in my opinion than having a WMF mandated area, which in my view would come over a lot worse. --Mrjulesd(talk)20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just switched from weak keep to delete as a rssult of NE Ent highlighting WMF's anti-discriminatory position above. There is a difference between banning a particular user from a user's space and banning a class of users based in this case on gender, but the same goes for race, religion, nationality etc etc DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the decision is "keep" what I would hope: that if a man decided to make a male only area in his userspace, that it would also be accepted. If not it would smack of double standards. --Mrjulesd(talk)21:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This whole frickin wikipedia is a sausage factory, what harm is caused by one public place that requests female-only participation? We can re-visit in the future if things somehow go awry, but wikipedia's lack of diversity is a much huger problem. Let this user page extension continue and nobody needs to run off creating "butthurt males" pages, please.--Milowent • hasspoken00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete as opposed to the fundamental principles of WP: both, "where everyone may edit..." and anonymity (requiring specification of gender). There is much great tolerance for individuality in WP space, and of course any WPedian can ask specific people not to post on their user talk. But to ask all those not in a specific class to post, especially when the class is something which should be irrelevant to WP editing, is using WP for social purposes. Discrimination against women is a problem here sometimes. There are better ways of addressing it (e.g. the WM-NYC chapter has run and continues to run a number of women-led projects with 50% or more women participants, including a national convention. This is done by positive outreach, not exclusion.) DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you should mention WM-NYC as a positive example here, DGG. I stopped coming to WM-NYC meetups a few years ago largely because the chapter was unable or unwilling to offer me any help when a male member of the group repeatedly made me extremely uncomfortable with staring at my body and generally inserting himself where I was in a way that made me feel hunted. I also know I wasn't the only woman to complain about this person's behavior. Nevertheless, I recall there being comments about how the chapter couldn't be exclusionary just because someone was making the women uncomfortable, and why didn't we just avoid him. So I did. I stopped coming to meetups. If WM-NYC serves as an example of anything related to the gendergap topic, it is that when a group cannot offer women a safe and friendly space, it should not be surprising when the women choose to either create their own, or just stop coming around. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fluffernutter It is possible to improve. Yes, we had a problem from some people and dealt with it, and continue to discuss ways of dealing with it. If we haven't been OK this past year, please let me or Pharos know; we would not respond the same way now as you mention. We are now prepared to exclude individuals if necessary; not groups. I think we're gradually getting better at open & equitable discussion. We had problems with multicultural outreach also, and have succeeding in dealing with this also. As part of that, our projects now deal with other language WPs than English. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fluffernutter and DGG, I was so disappointed to see DGG follow my keep with a "strong delete", but your follow-on discussion is incredibly creepy. Not dealing with pervs who deserve a beat down is just one of the thousand reasons why this little page shouldn't be snuffed out.--Milowent • hasspoken04:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me like this sort of thing will inevitably get organized whether editors like it or not - off-wiki, if necessary. If you're concerned about the effect this will have on future edits to Wikipedia, wouldn't you rather have the discussion in a place where you can at least see it? 70.24.6.142 (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An interesting social experiment in user space. Leave it for a while and find out if it does solve or cause any of the problems in reality, which are proposed in hypothesis above. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 07:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wasn't aware of the User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch until I commented at ongoing Arbitratration Enforcement proceeding and then saw NE Ent mention this there. I commented up to this point, with bigger argument that we need to explicitly allow Wikiprojects to set membership policies and be exclusionary, in part to get ARBCOM out from trying to regulate interactions in club spaces where the clubs can jolly well do it better, if allowed. I also think it is nonsense to assert that this "is clearly against WMF's nondiscrimation policy", as NE Ent asserted. All sorts of minority interest groups operate within schools and corporations that are obviously themselves committed to nondiscrimination. Thanks, Lightbreather, for taking this forward. --doncram
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.UDHR at www.un.org
Allowing assemblies--of like-minded persons--does not contradict a general view or policy that Wikipedia is not a social networking venue. Wikipedians should be allowed to assemble for specialized purposes within/consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia. Like to be able to discuss improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of numismatics, say, with out being disrupted by philatelists and choosing to have a higher anti-profanity standard in behavior than prevails elsewhere in Wikipedia discussions. :) No, you can't assemble to entertain sabotage or to pursue a racist agenda, of course. --doncram08:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where do the documents you cited affirm the basic human right to exclude someone from an assembly purely and solely on the basis of their sex—not their ideas, not their behaviour, simply their sex? In fact, I would think that would be quite contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please find a WikiProject which forbids people from joining or even commenting on their discussion page on any basis, let alone their putative editing interests. You won't, because it's not allowed. Any decision to specifically exclude an editor from Wikipedia pages is taken by the community at large on an individual basis and is taken because of their behaviour. The only argument that would be remotely valid in this discussion is that Wikipedia grants wider latitude to editors to "control" their user pages, as opposed to Wikipedia and Article space. But even that is open to debate and interpretation. Voceditenore (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am an American and like most Americans I get a bit fuzzy about what are the basic human rights, after freedom of speech and freedom to buy semi-automatic machine guns and carry them into public places. :) Freedom of assembly, though part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as part of the UDHR, is not widely understood. I am winging this a bit, but I think a big part of the problem in understanding is that Americans are so darned proud of being individualistic, that they generally don't understand group/community-level phenomena as well as people of some other cultures. But academic study of social group theory documents that definition of boundaries of groups (i.e. membership criteria and processes for admission or expulsion) are critical. Such aspects of groups tie directly to their ability to regulate behavior of individuals, which actually is obvious if you think about it. And American impoverishment of understanding about group/community-level phenomena transfers over to our lack of understanding about freedom of assembly and highly related freedom of association. See the section Freedom of association#Theory, especially the perspective of Libertarians, who apparently grasp it pretty well, IMO. Besides in this Libertarian passage, I see the right of groups to exclude non-members from their assembly is not clearly discussed in the basic Wikipedia articles. However, the discussions are all about freedom of unions and other groups to form and engage in collective action to pursue the interests of their members. It is unsaid in these Wikipedia articles (and likely in other treatments), that unions and other groups must be allowed to expel FBI agents, KKK members, company strikebreakers, and other uncovered would-be disruptors from their meetings, but I think it is understood in practice that they do have this right. And I believe it is part and parcel of the right of assembly, that it is a right of individuals to join with other individuals who share the same interests and views, and in so doing to exclude those who oppose the group goals (say to develop comprehensive Wikipedia articles about coinage of Rome).
About "it's not allowed", where is it banned in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that WikiProjects should not exclude disruptive participants? I agree that in practice it seems not to occur; WikiProjects are saddled with difficulties and driven into oblivion. The evolution of Wikipedian's right to ban selected others from their Talk pages is an important, good development. It has helped in a lot of antagonistic situations. Of course that right should apply to new pseudo-WikiProject-groups based within any User's pages, like this Kaffeklatsch, and of course also it should be extended to WikiProjects in Wikipedia-space (it is nonsensical to drive clubs that are really WikiProjects into User-space). I note the example of the past User:TallNapoleon/Association_of_Established_Editors with interest. It looks like it was badgered into oblivion, by outsiders attacking while the founder(s) were just trying to sort out sensible goals and boundaries for the group. I expect many potential restricted clubs would be shunned by most of us present today. A number of women editors have indicated their disinterest in belonging to any all-women WikiProject. Lots of us don't like exclusion, me included, at least when it appears unnecessary. We are not very astute, as a collective, in when exclusion is helpful and necessary, I think. I think it is helpful and necessary when it furthers Wikipedia goals like attracting and supporting editors who would otherwise be unwilling to contribute, due to dominance by bullies or men or whatever. It is not helpful, and most of us would not choose to join, when the membership criteria or goals of the group are frivolous or mean-spirited or come across as snobby (maybe the latter is part of why the Association of Established Editors failed). I expect it will be difficult for exclusive, semi-private clubs to get started, even if allowed, because of the likely unpleasantness in addressing conflict and setting boundaries. We are not good at that in general; witness our incompetence in our cemetery of WikiProjects. But explicitly allowing WikiProjects to set boundaries gives interested participants the chance to define something good, something worthwhile, and to defend it from careless and/or malicious destroyers, so it can be worthwhile to do the work. And, again, among us are many adults capable of choosing rules of order and defining necessary unpleasant judicial processes, or perhaps defining clever systems that are more subtle in creating boundaries and supporting good behavior without obvious violence. --doncram14:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further, those of us who are Americans oughta learn about refinements/extensions of the right of assembly in the U.S., e.g. as covered in First Amendment to the United States Constitution#Freedom of association, where I learn that "privacy of membership" became protected, that in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) it was determined that "'implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment' is 'a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends' and that "the Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression, such as gender." (But obviously a group whose expression is gender-based is allowed to exclude based on gender). And I learn that in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, "the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view" and I learn that in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) "the Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association." I happen to think it was poor strategy for the Boy Scouts of America to choose to exclude gay scouts until recently, and I would expect that a WikiProject with seemingly unnecessary discrimination would fail. But there probably are lessons/parallels for us to consider in governing exclusive semi-private clubs in the future. No issues for the Kaffeeklatsch, though, IMO. --doncram15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware WMF is a signatory to the UDHR, and if it was, UDHR Article 2 states: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. NE Ent10:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't think that is a very sophisticated understanding. How do you reconcile the existence and encouragement of minority groups on university campuses, whose explicit purpose often is to facilitate mutual support? It's not a problem to have a Native American support group, or a sorority, or a Chinese Cultural Club, or a College Republicans group, or other groups on a campus. Their existence, and even subsidies provided from general student fees for each of them, does not restrict non-members from participating in the university, I think is the main reasoning. I see no problem for WMF, and I foresee no embarrassment on my part to be involved in a Wikipedia that allows such groups, while I am frankly embarrassed by the exclusionary-type behavior to attempt to ban them. --doncram14:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And anyhow, let WMF legal consider the issue, and in 2 seconds say there is no problemo (is what I anticipate), rather than try to decide the legality by mob-of-non-lawyers opinions here. --doncram16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not solely a legal question. It's also a philosophical matter - what does the WMF want for the projects. Hence why discussions like this are valuable. Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs is correct, doncram. This has nothing to do with legality. No one here who has argued for deletion has done so on the basis of legality, but on the basis that it goes against Wikipedia's ethos, and possibly its current terms of use. Neither of which are "laws", and in terms of its ethos, it is a philosphical question. As far as I can see, you are the only one who has made an argument based on "legality", i.e. by deleting the project Wikipedia would be violating the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Actually, Wikipedia already does that since we don't have "freedom of speech" here either. I think it is neither helpful nor accurate to characterise the discussants as a "mob-of-non-lawyers" arguing about the law. Voceditenore (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great if you now see no legal problem. It's been done on other Wikipedias, already, is another reason why we should expect no legal problems, and no conflict perceived by WMF with its anti-discrimination policy. Sorry about the "mob" term, now stricken by me.
I didn't say the U.S. constitution or the UDHR applied. I do say that allowing this explicitly, and other semi-private groups addressing other good purposes, is like establishing a right of assembly, which is pretty much the same as right of association. I sensed that allowing exclusion in a group area was similar, is pretty much a necessary corollary to a right of association. The U.S. supreme court agrees with that correspondence: "Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, "freedom of association ... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." (bolding added by me, to William Rehnquist's words, from Boy Scouts of America v. Dale#Majority opinion).
I understand fully that we don't have or want unlimited "Freedom of Speech" in wikipedia, like we tell POV-pushers at Talk pages that they do NOT have freedom of speech to go on rants not connected to developing content constructively. Likewise we don't want to overstate any "Freedom of Assembly/Association" over competing goals. If you don't like the analogy, don't use it, but I happen to think its useful to understand "allowing a restricted area" pretty much equates to "allowing assembly" and "allowing some self-governance on conduct of members". And I think in this case and some others that would be helpful. In other topic areas, like numismatics I expect, the editors interested are not overwhelmed by persons working at cross-purposes. We allow freedom of assembly, in practical terms, to interest groups in lots of obscure topic areas. In a few areas, allowing assembly is not practical without a bit more: allowing the group to define membership and exclude non-members, just like an individual can do at their own Talk page. Not a big change, actually. --doncram22:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. I lean towards keep.
Obviously we'd reject a "whites only" space or a "men only" space on Wikipedia. But an absolute principle of non-discrimination also needs to balanced by the fact that "treating everyone the same" tends to favour certain groups over others. So I think the idea that this clashes with Wikipedia's non-discrimination policy is weak (but not non-existent); I would feel differently if this was in project space, or if it was providing some benefit that was not available to the excluded class of editors.
That said, I also don't think this is a good idea. Sure, I support the underlying idea of providing a safe space where female voices are privileged. But it's a public Wikipedia page. Basing it on a willingness to accept behavioural and social norms may be a more workable solution. Say no to mansplaining (like I am, ironically, doing now!) Guettarda (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely certain what the purpose of the page even is. Is it meant to discuss specific articles related to women and how to improve them? If so, it sounds like it would work better as a wikiproject, and I'd be surprised if a wikiproject didn't already exist for the subject. The only discussions that have taken place on the page so far are about the rules of the page, which brings me to another question. If the page is meant to be only for women, what would happen if an anonymous user were to comment, without having already identified themselves as women, or if a man were to comment on the page? Would their comment be removed? Pishcal — ♣20:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a small test so far. The bigger purpose, per proposal at IdeaLab on meta, which must be linked somewhere above, is to address the fact that "There is currently no space on Wikipedia where a woman can go and be sure that she'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's voices. Wikipedia needs a place where women can feel safer and not always overwhelmed by male advice, criticism, and explanations." Goals include creating such a space, with a civility policy and with no trashing allowed, having discussions there, and increasing the number of women editors on Wikipedia. I expect there's intention to discuss Wikipedia article development, like any of us could do at a Wikiproject, but it is well understood that this area, being restricted, would not have the ability to make Wikipedia-community-consensus type decisions. There has been wp:GGTF, a task force like a Wikiproject, but it hasn't worked; it's been overwhelmed by men. This page is, in my view, a WikiProject set up in User space, where it is more clearly established that restricting participation is acceptable. I think it should be allowed to be an explicit WikiProject in Wikipedia space, but that's not what this MFD is about.
About non-member comments, at least during this test for now, I think Lightbreather would apply her intention stated at meta, that "Any civil comments by anyone who is not a member of the group, I move to my user talk page. Any uncivil comments, I will delete," which is highly reasonable IMO. I think there might be technical options (filters) that could prevent editing by non-members, in a future version, not in this test. For now, I think the MFD subject page should be, and is expected to be, treated like any regular user talk page (where current practice is that anyone repeatedly violating a request not to post, is addressed by wp:ANI for their disruptions).
Keep. It's a user-space discussion page where women can post and men are asked not to. That's it. There are 4.7 million articles on Wikipedia, all with a talk page (or at least a redlinked talk page). There are tens of thousands of users, each with talk pages. There are countless noticeboards. You are welcome to post on all of them. But on one page, operated by one user (who you have no duty or requirement to interact with), you are asked not to post on a user talk subpage if you aren't female. That's it. That's not a big ask, and it's frankly not a big deal. Here in London, there are not only bars and clubs that men can't go into, there are bars and clubs that only men can go into (some gay clubs, for instance). There are places you can only go into if you are wearing a suit and tie, and there are places that will turn you away if you are overdressed. If you aren't a Catholic, you aren't allowed to take Communion; some mosques are not going to let non-Muslims in during prayer times. Somehow despite these fairly obvious and minimal exceptions, my dear city has not turned into a divided or separatist society, become overrun with malevolently-intended social justice warriors or any of the other supposed ills that will befall the place if women have one teeny userspace-based side alley where they can have a conversation without men butting in (but which is open for all to read). This is hardly some great historical wrong: you aren't being asked to move to the back of the bus. We should be experimental rather than dogmatic on how to cultivate an inclusive community (and how to remedy Wikipedia's gender gap). The best thing to do is to let this continue as an experiment: if in a year or two's time, it has turned into some kind of toxic horror show, nominate it for deletion then on the grounds of actual harm that it is doing. Until then, if you are a dude and are getting into a strop about this, calm down and find one of the millions of other talk pages to post on. This really is not a big deal. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[ Second ], I don't agree that policy support and/or mandates deletion here. It's not a "personal home page" such that it runs afoul of WP:UP#OWN; it's a user page that many people will use. It's not owned; it's by definition shared. Most importantly, nothing actually prevents you from editing it aside from your own respect for another person's wishes (and, at a point, remedies in place to protect people's wishes in their userspace). In other words, it's the same thing that stops you from editing anybody else's talk page that you've been asked not to. And she didn't even ask not to edit her usertalk page -- just not that one. I don't feel any more excluded by this userpage than I do by WikiProject Dogs. I was working on this ocelot-related article and wanted to see what they thought about it but they told me that forum was just for people who like to improve dog-related articles. I didn't want to harass them so I left. (...Yeah it's a flawed analogy, I know, but it lynx to my point).
[ Third ], It's interesting that I looked through this whole thread and didn't see anyone bring up any negative practical consequences this page has on the encyclopedia. Sure, the "spirit of Wikipedia" is important and violations thereof have practical implications down the road, but it's interesting that the arguments all seem to stop there because exclusion. To me the spirit of Wikipedia is one that places value first and foremost on fostering the creation of the best possible encyclopedia that draws from the work of crazy numbers of people in order to best reflect the world's knowledge and is available to everyone for free. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. That's why Wikipedia is amazing. The reason IAR exists (and still exists despite being abused so much) is that the spirit of Wikipedia is more than what the letter of a policy says -- it's about the project as a whole. The spirit of Wikipedia is an important thing, and I know I'm pontificating and talking in Walesian utopitudes, but it does say something that while those supporting delete (most anyway) appear to stop at policy arguments because exclusion, those arguing to keep are, in addition to responding to policy, also pointing to concrete consequences for the encyclopedia, real data about participation, and the what it means for Wikipedia's ability to be a reflect the world's knowledge. To be clear, though, I'm not making an IAR argument here. I'm just saying that not only does policy not support or mandate deletion here, but the policy-based arguments in favor of deletion which claim "spirit of Wikipedia" are also weaker in this case than the "spirit of Wikipedia" arguments on the keep side. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I support this as a mild and likely harmless experiment addressing a clearly identified problem with a worthy aim proposed by the very people it intends to serve located in a namespace where we typically permit a range of gatherings and expressions to occur. While an 'exclusive' space might strike some as philosophically uneasy, if it works to attract more positive contributions from women, great--that ultimately serves the inclusive purpose of bringing more female editors into our project and keeping them here. We're desperately missing those voices.
I acknowledge that my personal preference would be a space with an explicit purpose (engage and support female editors) and a clear code of conduct (no harassment, belittling, monopolizing arguments, etc.) rather than a gender-identity pledge. That's partly because I think the means would be more directly targeted at the goal, partly because I prefer humanism to other sub-isms, partly because it would include myself and other male allies, and also partly because a women-only space will also invite women who may combative, men faking a gender in order to participate, or outright trolls. Still, if I take the time to listen to the women who have expressed a need for this, I pause to reconsider why a space--where a group of people say they would feel relief that they could finally hear and speak themselves without constant intrusion and conflict--would be anything but a blessing to those involved.
Lastly, other folks like me who were blissfully attracted to Wikipedia precisely because it was faceless and 'argumentatively meritocratic', individualistic, and classically liberalhave to grapple with the tradeoff between--as User:Sumanah so eloquently put it--hospitality and liberty. Wikipedia is a free place, and while that is chiseled into its identity, freedom is not always without cost and not always equal. I'd implore anyone seriously objecting on discrimination grounds to read this powerful and incisive essay by Joseph Reagle to its end: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4291/3381. In short, problem seeks solution, solution proposed, let's try it. Ocaasit|c10:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am in a quandry. Frauebewegungen in Germany are particularly militant as were some of my girlfriends during my near 20-year stay there through the 70s and 80s. The French don't give a hoot what with many of the traditional gender roles reversed in France anyway, and we Brits are pretty so so about it. From what I've seen, in the US all genders seem to co exist and even cohabit quite normally. Wikipedia isn't really a male fiefdom any more than anything else in life. Admittedly we don't see many women working in coal mines or on oil rigs but we see them on space stations, driving artic rigs, flying jets fighters, and here in Asia mixing concrete on building sites. Around the developed world men are probably outnumbered in nursing, cabin crew, floristry, pastry cooking, pornography and prostution.
There is nothing physical or intellectual that dictates Wikipedia as a workplace best suited to either men, women, LGBT, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, or monkeys, but if men are in the majority, then it's not their fault. Tens of thousands of donors' dollars have been squandered by the Foundation in trying to reverse a situation that has been around since men went hunting and women kept the cave clean. If women won't work on Wikipedia it's because women won't work on Wikipedia - the stats are the same on all Wikipedias and worlwide there is roughly the same number of boys as girls.
On pure vote count this is likely to be a very close run debate; on the weight of the arguments however, there may be a clear consensus, but the question is: who will the most unbiased closer be - a man or a woman? Perhaps we should choose a monkey. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung: I don't think I'm going out on a limb to suggest that there may be an explanation for the gendered differences in participation on Wikipedia that doesn't require recourse to the sociobiology of cavemen and cavewomen. Maybe if women had some kind of place on-wiki where they could discuss these matters without fear of overly defensive dudes dropping by, they might be able to express the ways they can feel excluded by our community's practices and processes... —Tom Morris (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can someone hail the First Tiger? There look to be many people here interested in joining the Wikipedia chapter of G.R.O.S.S.. But in all seriousness, keep. This page is no Esperanza; it isn't causing any harm. HiDrNick!14:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering less than 10% of Wikipedia editors are women, I think that is perfectly fine, especially in a public forum like WP, to have a talk page. My hesitation to say Keep is because of two factors: 1) Don't the WikiProjects focusing on women and gender already serve this purpose? and 2) I think the use of a "pledge" to adhere to LB's requirements to participate are rather random. It is one thing to create a "safe space" but quite another to say anyone participating has to add themselves to certain categories or do other superficial acts. LizRead!Talk!19:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:UP: "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site". User pages are not for creating private forums; Wikipedia users are also anonymous so gender-based identification and possible exclusion is pointless. It can be defended mostly with radical feminist arguments, whereas a transfeminist would be against such a page. Personally, I don't think it makes a difference what is removed from personal user space or not, but politicies certainly are against it. --Pudeo'20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOBAN, which says that it is usual to "avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful." Lightbreather should be allowed to experiment with creating a safe space for women editors in her user space. No valid policy-based reasons for deletion have been raised. WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK doesn't apply here as the purpose of the page is to provide a foundation for effective collaboration. On a side note, it is disappointing to see the same patterns of behavior that gave us GGTF and Gamergate repeated here.[3]gobonobo+c20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
