Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
I see a block for censorship and another for
vandalism, the other is a 3RR violation
for reverting it, which isn't enforced because the changes being
reverted
are rule violations.
This is consistent with what I've seen before,
which is a nice
change. Because the page is
in fact about the comics, the comics (or a link to it
if the
copyrights were enforced) really
does belong on the page.
WP:BP does not mention "censorship" as a case for a block. No admin
would block anyone for removing the Goatse.cx image from the Goatse.cx
article or any porn from any porn stars article.
What rules do the reverted changes violate, so the other 3RR violations
are not enforced?
Blanking, whether in whole or "significant parts", is considered vandalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. Also, this is
policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.
You do bring up a good point about the consistency of application, and you probably are
correct, but you need actual examples of that happening. I'd keep in mind that shock
material, like goatse images, is considered vandalism unless it's within the context
of an article that's clearly about it. Most people don't know what to expect
reading goatse. An article titled "Extreme sex acts", however, because people
know by the title that they aren't entering an article about goats or facial hair,
would be allowed a lot more discretion on what is and is not shock, at least as long as it
involves sex. Consider these articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
~~~Pro-Lick
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.