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
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:
True. WP:NOT censored states:
"Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful
to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or
It doesn't state:
"It is Wikipedias mission to publish tasteless articles or images
and breaking social or religious norms or requirements."
WP:Profanity is more specific in that matter. It states:
"Including information about offensive material is part of
Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
The current state of the JP article *is* offensive, whereas a linkimage
compromise would still include all information about offensive material.
You do bring up a good point about the consistency of
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: