Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep (majority delete failed to reach the 2/3 level generally considered a minimum for consensus) --Allen3 ^talk 02:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency 1.1 Votes 1.1.1 August 17 00-06 1.1.2 August 17 06-12 1.1.3 August 17 12-18 1.1.4 August 17 18-24 1.1.5 August 18 1.1.6 August 19 and later 1.1.7 Sock puppets 1.2 Tally of Signed Votes 1.3 Attempt to Summarise Arguments 1.4 Point of Interest 1 1.5 Applicable Florida Law 1.6 Point of interest 2 1.7 Point of interest 3 1.8 Point of Interest 4 1.9 See speedy keep above 1.10 Point of Interest 5 1.11 List of talk pages tagged by this project 1.12 Point of interest 6 1.13 Why is this a project? 1.14 Jimbo Wales weighs in on the legal issues 1.15 Post Jimbo Discussion 1.16 User:DavidsCrusader 1.17 Point of interest 7 1.18 Point of interest 8 1.19 Who legislates Decency? 1.20 Why attack images? 1.21 Wikipedians for Indecency 1.22 Cheers for this project 1.23 Alternative: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Graphical content problem 1.24 Automatic Fool List 1.25 Hypocrisy 1.26 New Wikipedians against censorship WikiProject

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

While it is unorthodox and very uncommon to put a Wikiproject up for deletion, but I believe this project will be more harmful to the project than good. The first point I wish to make is that Wikipedia is not censored to minors. That means we will have information that is not suitable to minors and some people. Second, trying to introduce standard to show "offensive" images is introducing POV. What I consider offensive maybe not be to another person and vice versa. Third, the project was created during the WP:IFD nomination of an image used on the article Autofellatio, which has been the subject to many IFD's over photos. Fourth, they are using an image gallery created by a user as a benchmark for images that should be looked at. I believe that the personal gallery should be left alone so either he or others can view the images as they please. We have VFD'ed a Wikiproject before because it was introducing bias into Wikipedia. I believe that if this project stands, this could be just the begining of very bad things to come. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The "gallery" in question was the well known list of nude images on Wikipedia, not a personal gallery but a collection of all the images the user thought were "dirty". I have removed it as per your objection but the point wasn't to use it as a benchmark, but since he so nicely collected all images of possibly sexual nature, to examine all the images and try to build a standard from such an examination. Agriculture 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

While I have no clue why the user in question made the gallery, but it could have been nude images he liked or trying to show some of the various photos on Wikipedia. Some of the nudes were from classical paintings (Victorian) and some are the images we see today from Playboy. However, if the images are not in the gallery, then we have no idea if they are around until they show up on WP:IFD. While I thank you for taking notice to my reasoning for deletion and not brushing it aside, I just think that this project might not be needed on Wikipedia and from what I see already, problems have arose. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What problems, other than users calling Project members names? So far the only problem I have seen is from those who oppose the project being unable to keep a grip on civility. If you have other problems, I again urge you to join the project and help us correct them. All viewpoints are both welcome and needed. Agriculture 06:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever these users are doing, they are doing this on their own. I am not encouraging them to do anything, except that I notified people in the Wikipedia IRC that the VFD has been opened by me. And the other problems, which I hinted at earlier, was dealing with POV issues. What I might find offensive you might not and vice versa. Plus, this will creat uncivility as we both see now. While you might think that the project is trying to help Wikipedia out, the way it was worded and the way it would have been carried out, in my view, would have nothing but harm to it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the project appears to be to coordinate votes against material they disagree with. What next? Republicans for deleting anti-patriotic pages? Democrats for deleting pro-war propaganda? They are campaigning here no matter what they claim. That is inherently POV.--Gorgonzilla 00:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

[edit] August 17 00-06

• Delete Wikipedia is not censored for minors. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with the way these chaps are going about things at the moment, but I don't think their aims are necessarily incompatible with Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly encourage you to join the project so you can voice your objections to the way things are being done. This project cannot be successful without a wide range of viewpoints and we would value your opinion. Agriculture 06:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think we would see eye to eye, somehow. My concept of decency on Wikipedia would be to cease inflicting your moral standards on those of us who are trying to make this into a good encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. And everything Zscout said. Redwolf24 05:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The inherent community standard of the current Wiki process is sufficient. If media has already been debated, then the standards have already begun to develop through the wiki mechanisms. If people object to these standards, the wiki software is freely available for their use. Perhaps there should be an alternative to wikipedia for children. Parental Control Software is available for home computers. 05:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (vote by User:Heathhunnicutt)
• Comment There are alot of unencyclopedic sex related images that get uploaded, porn of all varieties (I should add that in my experience alot of this gets deleted on site), photoshoped naked celebrities, and so on. If these guys are prepared to find the stuff the admins miss and list on them on ifd for the community to debate I don't really see the harm. If the project was to evolve in a different way then I'd reconsider.--nixie 05:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--nixie 03:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete post-haste. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. The last thing we need is a bunch of prudes running reckless through the encyclopedia, putting images up for deletion, and trying to define "community standards of decency" according to what they think it should be. →Raul654 05:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's comments like the above which prove this project should be kept. We're not trying to censor Wikipedia for minors, just trying to establish a standard, and provide a place to investiage Florida and other law which might be relevant. It's not a "bunch of prudes running reckless through the encyclopedia, putting images up for deletion, and trying to define "community standards of decency" according to what they think it should be" as the above poster so cleverly stated through personal attack, it's a place for ANY Wikipedian. Agriculture 05:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That's strange, considering your project's deletion template, which is to be used "for use in highlighting the reason to delete certain images", says "Under Florida Title XLVI, Chapter 847, Section 11, it is a third-degree felony to distribute photographs of sexual acts in such a way that they are available to minors. So, your project isn't here to censor images for the protection of minors, despite the fact that that's *EXACTLY* what it's own template says. →Raul654 06:00, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Put aside your personal bias for a moment and try to have an open mind. The reason for the template is pretty obvious. If Florida law prohibits certain images, and Wikipedia distributes them, Wikipedia could be shut down. I don't want this to happen, I suspect you don't either. So the goal is to prevent this from happening. Not to protect minors, to obey Florida law, something Jimbo himself has supported and stated as a minimum standard. Agriculture 06:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Nice attempt to change stories. First, you claim that no, you're not trying to censor images (in violation of policy). Then, when your own project page shoots a gaping hole in your story, you claim that you're only doing it with the best of intentions. I do have an open mind, which is why I am markedly opposed to this blatant power grab and attempt at censorship. That's why everyone else should be, too. I'm for people using good editorial judgement in excluding certain images (which, from my conversation with Jimbo re: the autofellatio image, is pretty much exactly what he has said about the subject); on the other hand, I'm against having "community standards" thrust upon the community by the self-selcted members of your project, who claim to be looking out for Wikipeida's best interests. →Raul654 06:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • Please go read the law, the law in particular refers to distribution to minors, or perhaps I have misread it. Our goal isn't to make Wikipedia safe for minors, but to bring it into good standing with respect to Florida Law. If Florida Law states certain things about minors, then we will work for it too, but our goal isn't to specifically change things to be safe for minors, but to bring it into good standing with Florida Law. This is no change of story, please go read the law and think about this before making such false accusations. Agriculture 06:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• The last thing we need is a bunch of prudes trying to enforce their standards of decency? But what we need very much is a bunch of liberal types trying to enforce theirs? So much for the wiki being inclusive! Keep this. I don't agree with the prudes but why are they not to be permitted their views? Grace Note 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Just because parents refuse to supervise their kids, that does not mean it is our job to do so. The Internet (or Wikipedia) is no more an appropriate baby-sitter than is television. -NickGorton 05:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Would my user page then be up for deletion since in it I describe that I am gay? There are many people who feel that discussion of LGBT issues is indecent and inappropriate for minors. -NickGorton 06:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nick, you seem to be confusing two issues: one, that the discussion of LGBT issues should not be suppressed (I agree), and two, that no one should be allowed to suggest that discussion of LGBT should be suppressed (I do not agree). The problem here is that in the name of "free speech" and "anticensorship", some seem to feel that we should not allow those with viewpoints that we don't approve of to speak freely and that we should censor those viewpoints! Grace Note 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not a consensus so I can't say for sure, but my guess would be since there is nothing on Wikipedia which supports considering LGBT indecent, and Florida Law doesn't prohibit it, it would not be indecent. Agriculture 06:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: moved long block quote and comment to talk page. Please revert if you think it belonged here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Then I suggest you join the project to help us come up with a good standard, rather than deleting it because you think there should be no standard. I quote Florida Title XLVI Chapter 847 Section 11, see below in appropriate section. This worries me, if Wikipedia (being hosted in Florida) isn't careful, it could be shutdown, the project in question is attempting to find a standard through consensus to prevent this law from shutting Wikipedia down. Please try to put away your personal bias for a moment and instead of attacking this effort, join it. Agriculture 06:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

..deleting it because you think there should be no standard. It's not the case that there is no standard. The standard used at the moment to determine what goes into Wikipedia are the standards of the WIkipedia community - every time someone edits an article, votes in VfD, or comments on a talk page that standard is used, refined, and strengthened, in a way akin to the Common Law legal system. No, it's not perfect, and variation is inevitable, but overall it works pretty well and the majority of users are happy with it. These same users - as the voting here shows - do not wish it to be superceded by some explicitly-written policy document, formulated according to a small group's personal morals and forever surrounded by argument and ill-feeling (as this debate has shown it would be). Essentially, the feeling is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", along with a healthy dose of anti-censorship instincts. PeteVerdon 09:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: As stated many times, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. I view this purley as an attempt by a bunch of morality nazis to justify going around and flooding Wikipedia with votes for deletion and imposing their view of what is or isn't appropriate on everyone. No way. This needs to go away. --192.223.226.5 14:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an encyclopedia and should be edited as such. Photos of classical art depicting nudity are appropriate in the proper context, but is it appropriate, e.g.to include a full frontal nude of Nicole Kidman in her biography? What purpose does it serve? (I have deleted said photo twice). I think Wiki should be edited for people of all ages, including the little people. Parents cannot always supervise their children and while that is not our job, it is our job to maintain a standard of decency. The trend is for schools to be providing the internet for student's research. Do we want the schools to censor Wiki from their students, or do we want the students coming to Wiki for information? It is a question of our own priorities. If this makes me a "prude" then I can only retort about being "lewd". Amerindianarts 00:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • While having a nude picture of Nicole Kidman in her article likely adds nothing to its content, there are certain articles, for example penis where "inappropriate" material (that is to say, in the US at least, nudity) is necessary. If kids are looking up "penis", "sex" and "autofellatio" on the web, they're going to find "inappropriate" content regardless of whether it's here or through Google Image Search. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. - Haunti (give'r) 01:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Only Fascists censor, therefore Wikipedia shouldn't be censored for anyone, so I encourage that this "project" be dismantled. The Fäcist Chicken 02:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 17 06-12

• Strong delete per WP:NOT. --Idont Havaname 06:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:NOT. Radiant_>|< 15:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete Like the pharaohs, they will wipe out facts of history because it offends their sensibilities. CanadianCaesar 06:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Never mind. This is bugging me. I shouldn't have voted in the first place and now abstain. CanadianCaesar 19:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Your POV seems to be clouding your abilities to judge the situation. Is the WikiProject (or any WikiProject for that matter) an exclusive club? Then whose to say the project won't support your "sensibilities"? It's a project for helping to bring Wikipedia in line with Florida Law, and to help determine if the current standards are good enough. How does it hurt to have a place to discuss this? How does censoring a group working to help Wikipedia help anyone? You're making judgements about the characters of a new group with completely open membership. Agriculture 06:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for making legal threats. Zoe 06:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no legal threat. None of us are threating legal action, we're pointing out existing law which Wikipedia has demanded we follow. We're seeking to bring things into good standing with law not to attempt to sue Wikipedia. It isn't a legal threat to point out that Wikipedia needs to follow criminal law, and then attempt to help it do so. Agriculture 06:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Fact of the Day: I saw penises and vaginas in Health class, which is funded by the government, which Florida is part of. Oh shit, they gotta shut themselves down. Flood it with Tubgirl images and Delete. -- A Link to the Past 06:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is it so hard for people who claim to be against censorship to have an open mind? Photos of Penises and Vaginas are not indecent, and no one is claiming they are. The point is that we need to determine what violates the law and where the standard should be, not to try to delete everything on Wikipedia. Join us, share your views in a constructive manner and help us figure it out. Agriculture 06:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • These are used for educational purposes. Shut up, kthx. And the images you reference, outside of Autofellatio, are not linked to any page and added by the same person, indicating that they should be deleted for unneeded images, but not indecency. We point out that this site is not censored for minors, and these images are used for educational purposes, nothing else. -- A Link to the Past 06:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • I lodge formal protest at your continued rudeness. Used for educational or otherwise, Florida Law clearly states intent has no bearing. This is why this project is important, because the law says intent is not a valid defense. Agriculture 06:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Freaking prudes, get out of my country! Can't I go one day without seeing you dolts? The government funds educational programs which provide nudity to the children for educational purposes. We do the exact same thing, and we're Nazi baby raping Satanists. Go back to WP:PRUDE, kthxbai. -- A Link to the Past 06:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not prudish to follow the law. Furthermore I note that your personal attack is a violation of Wikipedia Policy, and I encourage you to stop making them before I must ask a moderator to help mediate this. Agriculture 06:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I apologize for pointing out the obviouse fact that you are a prude, but when you do not even acknowledge that I pointed out that the GOVERNMENT (that you seem to worship above all else) has allowed nudity to be exposed to the eyes of children as young as 12. So, until you stop avoiding the argument at hand, you're a prude. -- A Link to the Past 06:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
              • No actually that isn't true, and you did more than call me a prude as you will note. I have no problem with nudity, and the state of Florida appears not to have a problem with it either. It has a problem with hardcore pornography, which is very different from nudity. Please read the full text of the article in question and the law before responding, as I think it will aid you in your understanding. Agriculture 06:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
                • So, wait. Schools use images depicting breasts, vaginas, penises and even sex, and that makes it educational. But when it's something not funded by the government that's doing nothing different, it's some kind of evil act. Perhaps - work with me here - Florida would care about the doings of Wikipedia because it's not a governmental-funded organization like the school system is? -- A Link to the Past 07:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Look, I'm trying to work with you here, but you aren't even reading my comments. Let me try this as clearly as possible
                    1. Penises, Vaginas, Breasts not hardcore pornography, easily decent in both schools and Wikipedia.
                    2. Images of Explicit Sexual Acts such as intercourse or other similar things possibly hardcore pornography and possibly indecent in both schools and Wikipedia.
                    3. More time and discussion required as to exactly how to classify and how to come into line with law, thus purpose of the project. Agriculture 07:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia autofellates you! Delete creation scientists, prudes and jesus freaks for great justice. Comrade Raul654 said it best. Comrade Raul654, we sallute you! Vodka! Da! Project2501a 06:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT — Linnwood 06:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that Wikipedia is not something which follows Florida Law, or that Wikipedia is not for encouraging discussions to form a consensus? Agriculture 06:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors — Linnwood 07:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Where does it say you have to respond to every vote? Zoe 06:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • I feel the noted reasons for the vote are invalid and the user is not informed of the facts, I am trying to help this discussion by spending time talking about it. Talking and discussing is not prohibited. Agriculture 06:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • You are, in fact, not spreading facts, but falsehoods. Nothing on Wikipedia can be shown to be obscene under the standards laid down by the Supreme Court, to wit - that which appeals only "to a prurient interest," shows "patently offensive sexual conduct" and "lacks serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value." Clearly, the photo in question in the IFD has serious scientific value in the context of autofellatio, showing that the act is indeed physically possible by humans. There is nothing patently offensive about autofellatio, nor can the photo be shown to appeal only to prurient interests. It is an encyclopedic photo which belongs in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 07:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
          • You are perhaps right that the image in question is valid, but there is a truly real question to be raised. Does that truly have scientific value? Maybe, maybe not. No current standard exists, a large part of the purpose of the WikiProject is to establish this standard. There is no falsehood spread, only Wikipedia Guidelines, Florida Law, Wikipedia Standards, and a place to discuss and find consensus. Agriculture 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 07:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The key phrase in all this is "lacks serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value". Wikipedia continuously flushes out material that isn't encyclopedic. Anything that adds significantly to an article is of literary value, which protects Wikipedia under the Miller Test for obscenity. As for the Wikiproject, I don't mind having watchdog groups around, so I vote keep, but what they should be watching for are images which can't ever have a place in an encyclopedia and nominating them at IFD. --Titoxd 08:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; this project can never be NPOV. I smell WP:Point; would you be happy if the servers were moved out of Florida? Lectonar 08:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Kill it with fire --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

We're all out of fire, will Weapons of Mass Destruction do? :D Project2501a 09:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No; then we would be in danger of being invaded Lectonar

Thats not how it works actually. You should read the article on Iraq then the one on North Korea. They are both pretty good. ::::

No such issue! I tell you! The brave wikipedians will fight off the cowards. Here only truth! Everywhere else, lies! Weapons of Mass Destruction On Wheels

• Sorry for the above off topic rambling I vote delete "Decency" reeks of POV. ::::
• Strong Delete - A forum for discussion of policies or other forms of free speech obviously have no place on Wikipedia. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Agriculture 08:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You forgot "truth is fiction" and "porn is art". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You're the ones trying to define what Wikipedia can say and what it can't here. — JIP | Talk 15:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - based on the belief that letting this project die a natural death after being defeated in anything it attempts is more productive and less divisive than blowing it up into a gigantic VfD debate which invites glorious martyrdom for the Defenders of All That Is Good And Decent In The World, Including Fluffy Bunnies (tm). FCYTravis 08:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP--MONGO 08:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia does not need it's own misguided version of the PTC. Gateman1997 08:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Consider the effect of this policy on users uploading material, which maybe is legal, legitimate etc..., they may be intimidated by the scope, complexity and process involved in moderation. Digital Thief 08:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep however misguided. They need a working definition of 'decency' before I could really comment. I believe in (almost) total free speech (which is more important than how many penis pics we can cram into autofellatio), but free-speech needs to cut both ways. Shall we censor the prudes as they burn the flag of the first amendment? Lord, save us from the tyranny of liberals! An important exploration of the borders of Wikipedia:Profanity and 'WP not censored' could be made here. --Doc (?) 08:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I simply don't believe that the aims of this project have merit consistent with the aims of Wikipedia, and if I were to vote 'keep' on things simply for the purposes of free speech, I would have to approve WP: List of times people have sneezed in the Pokemon cartoon. Which, by the way, no one should go and create. Thank you. A. J. Luxton 10:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Scientific images are alright, however why have a porno photo of sexual acts when a illustration would do just fine? For the user below, this Wikiproject helps to deal with those images. Banes 08:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For the user above: as far as I understand it, this vote is about the Wikiproject, not the images Lectonar 08:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't feed the trolls, nothing to see here, move along please. Pilatus 08:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

And ban the originator of the project for his penis-waving invocation of Florida law. Pilatus 15:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. People are free to take the matter to Wikipedia Policies if they feel the need to do so. Rama 08:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Reasons listed above in response to User: Doc glasgow. --A. J. Luxton 09:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I understand that the proposers of this project are acting in good faith, but I think they're sadly misguided. Wikipedia is supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge, and the fact that some of that knowledge makes some people uncomfortable does not mean it shouldn't be included. Nobody should be able to control what others can and can't see here, provided it's well-written factual information, regardless of the subject. "Think of the children!!1!" is something of a smokescreen; the world at large isn't padded, brightly-coloured and child-safe, neither is the Web, neither is Wikipedia - that's what parents are for. In any case, I think the idea that children will somehow be damaged by accidently seeing an article on some bizarre sexual practice is false - in my (admittedly limited) experience they're more likely to fail to understand what's being described, be bored and go somewhere else, or find the whole thing screamingly funny. But that's another debate that shouldn't be cluttering up this page. Finally, whether it's actually the case or not, this project have done themselves no favours by choosing a name that sounds like yet another of the rabid Christian-fundamentalist censorship groups that seem to be popping up all over the US these days. It should be deleted, but in a civil manner. PeteVerdon 09:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and is edited from outside Florida too. If Wikipedians want to protect the wee 'uns, they can do it as private persons. — JIP | Talk 09:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete While the debates around this "project" could be fun, I think it is just not worth keeping. Also, while there are - in my opinion - points that could be debated about such images, most certainly WP will not censor itself just because parents hold funny ideas about what their children should see or not, and then expect other people to do their job for them. That is not even worth debating about. -- AlexR 09:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Allow those concenred with the minuteae (sp) of Florida Law to discuss possible violations and take actions within the 'pedia framework. If they or their actions show that being located n Florida is a major hazard, we'll have to move the 'peia somewhere(s) else. (Distribution is probably going to happen anyway.) Rich Farmbrough 09:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This whole tyranny of the "shove potentially offensive material in their faces" school of thought is really extreme, to take it to the level of VfDing a project meant to counter that. I don't know how much I like the idea of the project, but I do think we need to make certain articles a bit less bluntly offensive to the vast majority of the world's population. There's a fair balance between prudishness and offensiveness we can find that will satisfy most people. I figure having a project like this might help even things out. Everyking 10:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If Wikipedia truly was an immoral and illegal hellbin of indecency, then the state of Florida would have already raised issue. Foppish troublemaking. And, my shaky grip of geography notwithstanding, isn't Florida in the United States of America, which has a Supreme Court holding the view that work containing potentially explicit images is only obscene if when "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"? If this this page remains, then the terrorists have already won. Proto t c 10:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't the "terrorists" in that phrase usually refer to anyone whom the Bush government disagrees with? — JIP | Talk 10:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. POV pushing clubs shouldn't be allowed whatsoever. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• This sort of project is probably acceptable for userspace where extreme POV is tolerated. Userfy if anyone is willing to take it in. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Looking at the comments further, I have to agree with Geogre (I always agree with Geogre's keep votes) and Scimitar. I also find Everyking's argument reasonable. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete See below -Harmil 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote the page in question:

Wikiproject Wikipedians for Decency was started [...] to coordinate and promote standards of decency on Wikipedia. This project is intended to coordinate efforts to bring articles to appropriate standards of decency [...] Additionally since relevant sections of Florida Law have been located [...]

This makes it quite clear that the goal is to impose a POV on Wikipedia, and that the laws of Florida are a secondary concern. A project which set as its goal the investigation of state, federal and international law on Wikipedia would be welcome, but this is not that project. -Harmil 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. 1. censoring the (perceived) censors is ... inconsistent? ironic? 2. driving people who support this underground and removing a central point for debate will accomplish precisely nothing. 3. I believe that there should be some standard of decency - mind you, the particular standard I'm likely to argue for is very permissive, so it will probably upset many Wikipedians for Decency, but it is not all-permissive (just my two cents: explicit images should be included but only when they actually make a significant contribution to an article; also nudes and body parts are generally ok). I think both sides are overreacting. ObsidianOrder 11:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

1. The key issue here is not censorship, but the policies this project runs afoul of: Neutral point of view, No legal threats, and Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The stated goal of the project is to "promote standards of decency" (read: promote a point of view); it is insinuated that Wikipedia or its editors are in violation of Florida law; if allowed to proceed, the project may have a chilling effect. In addition, it seems likely to encourage bad faith editing; indeed, it already appears poised for a witch hunt of some kind. [1]
2. Refusing to accept a project of this nature may help to limit disruption by its members.
3. I agree. However, in my opinion, it's only necessary to confine "indecent" material to the specific articles where it must be addressed. If someone looks up a "questionable" topic, they should find all the information Wikipedia has available, including relevant images. Such a standard can be upheld without the oversight of an unpopular project.

‣ᓛᖁᑐ 12:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - if there are problems with the issue of explicit images (which there may well be), then they should be dealt with in the same way as any other policy issue. A Wikiproject is not the way to go about it. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• keep I'm sure someon can respond by creating a wikiproject for lack of censorship and I like to be able to keep track of the sides.Geni 11:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep See EveryKing's comments --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 17 12-18

• Delete - As above, not censored for minors. Institutions such as schools and colleges have filtering software on their proxy servers which will automagickally block any pages they deem uncouth based on content, and parents should have more sense than to bollock their kid if they are reading encyclopaedia articles on body parts and the amazing array of things one can do with them. This is a non-issue that is being made a problem. --Veratien 12:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on principle. Of all possible avenues for discussion, VfD is probably the least productive—though it's the most productive in terms of guaranteeing input. Refuse to vote on merits of the project. Not in bad faith, whether it's fundamentally compatible with Wikipedia obviously disputed → not VfD's business yet. Polls are evil. JRM · Talk 12:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - This vfd is an attempt to silence. Those discussing on this page have no Admin authority or other powers. The page was simply created because Jimbo Wales believed that Image:autofellatio 2.jpg" was not a vision for Wiki and we agreed and wanted to use the powers of persuasion to change. --Noitall 12:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the fact that Jimbo Wales dislikes the autofellatio image is not really relevant. Jimbo is just another editor, and while his opinion is interesting Wikipedia is not a dictatorship or Jimbo's private fiefdom. --Ngb 16:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think this project is going to accomplish much, but it has a right to exist. If the actions of its members are disruptive or violate WP policy, they'll be dealt with. Carbonite | Talk 12:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but certainly not in this form. Expand scope and move to a NPOV name. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Image review - We sure could use some people who would look after the inclusion guidelines for images on content and legal matters. But fighting only for "decency", whatever that is, is too limited and misguided. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. "Decency" is just a blanket word for "whatever we think is right", much like "democracy" or "freedom" seem to be these days. — JIP | Talk 12:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If some people feel they see a problem (any problem) with wikipedia and want to address it by organising and discussing it through a WikiProject, then I'm more than fine with that. Shanes 13:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: We don't need to be debating the purpose of the page when deciding whether the page can be kept or not. That people don't want to join it is unsurprising, but that's not the question. Did the "delete" people also wish to delete Schoolwatch, m:inclusionists, or m:deletionists, with their calls to action and vote? Weren't all three of those similarly "trying to dictate" the content of the project? Weren't all three mobilizing votes? I would support deleting this page if all future party pages were similarly deleted, and all extant and operative ones were. Schoolwatch, in particular, has generated more name calling and bad feelings than anything I've seen. This one tells people to vote their consciences and looks for alternatives so that information is kept. For this people want to fly into hysterics? Sheesh. Kill all political party pages on Wikipedia, or leave this one alone. Geogre 13:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and pretty much everything above. Existing procedures and policies for content, disputes and deletion should suffice. --IByte 11:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 13:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Strong Delete. I have trouble seeing where this fits. There are many reasons to delete something, none of which need a new special project. And having looked closer, it is even worse than I thought.--Apyule 13:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The attempts at censorship is insulting. horseboy 13:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And that's why you want to censor them. Double double standard standard. - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you know of any other way to stop them from censoring Wikipedia? — JIP | Talk 13:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Why do you need to suppress them? Either a majority of users support removal of these images, and it makes no sense to suppress a majority opinion; or majority opposes their removal, and in such a case they won't be removed. - Mike Rosoft 12:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm all for nominating articles and images for deletion and then either deleting or keeping them. But this should be done in a case-by-case basis, not under a "Decency Act" of some self-nominated Decency Authority. Outright offensive material can be deleted from Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be kiddie-friendly. — JIP | Talk 13:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• If some people disapprove of explicit images on Wikipedia, and want to organize themselves, it's their freaking business. Strong keep; move to a personal page at worst. - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There a lot of sensitive articles and images on Wikipedia, but there's no need for censoring them. --Madchester 13:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

So you want to censor people discussing images and Wiki instead? --Noitall 13:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, while this project will never go anywhere (we loves our free speech around here), there is no reason to delete it. This is not a personal attack on anyone, and people can honestly hold these views consistent with a NPOV, it is not fair to call it POV pushing. NoSeptember 13:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and censor this profound and shocking indecency. Won't somebody think of the children? — Trilobite (Talk) 13:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Whereas I am inclined to think of these people as right wing prudes wearing Leviticus Bible quote T shirts, we should give them some more time. They could help stop vandals uploading goatse and the like. I don't agree on censorship, but if they're just keeping wiki on the right side of the law, then that's OK. But I'd rather Jimbo just moved the servers to some island with no laws of any kind, try England.- Hahnchen 14:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep: I do not consider myself a prude, but such images as the autofellatio are entirely unnecessary for Wikipedia and adds little to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if you all allow these images to come to Wikipedia en masse, Wikipedia will be censored anyways by existing internet censors, such as those that exist for certain countries and those that exist for corporations. Wikipedia will be put on the same level as porno sites, which should never happen. Also, lest we forget overtly-violent images. Why don't we upload some MPG's from certain websites showing various ways of death (woman hit by a train, man blown up, etc)? By the logic of certain members here, those should be allowed as well.

The world isn't ready for some of these images. Don't shove them down their throats (which is, ironic to this argument, POV). --tomf688^<TALK> 14:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, it's about time we started enforcing "no VFD of wikipedia: namespace". I don't think it's a good idea to use VFD to discuss policy, it's overloaded enough as is. Should we warn the nominator, and close this discussion, say in hmm, 24 hours? Kim Bruning 14:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Speedy Delete Everytime you people lose, you change the rules.. I didn't see you object before the votes were counted--172.130.8.51 14:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Who is "you people"? Kim didn't even vote before this point. Besides, it probably won't be deleted anyways because there isn't a large enough majority. --tomf688^<TALK> 14:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. There are some good points raised by this, but the use of legal threats is disruptive to the mission of the wiki. Sdedeo 14:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia having its own Taliban Ministry Of Vice And Virtue would destroy Wikipedia as we know it. It would be far less damaging to simply IP ban Florida, or the entire US if necessary. Better to lose a limb than die from gangrene. 194.216.55.225
• Delete for all the reasons give above -Splash 14:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since VFD has no jurisdiction here. — Dan | Talk 14:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: There is no purpose for this WikiProject. Any image that is to be removed will undergo IfD like any other, and the community will decide there. Standards are personal: an attempt to force a person's standards on the community would be rejected anyway. This seems to me an attempt to encourage a group of people to adopt a common standard, which is fine, except that they can do nothing about it. So basically, if you want to stick this on your User Page as a "I will begin an IfD for Images that don't meet these criteria", feel free. But since your criteria will be ignored by the rest of the community, this Project is a waste of time. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:38:57, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyone has a POV. Schoolwatch, for example, is dedicated to pushing every school in existence into Wikipedia. Regardless of our personal feelings, let's try to remember that this isn't article-space, thus POV isn't so important. Even if you view them as nutty-nutty-nutbars, they certainly have a right to strive for the unatainable, since clearly there will never be a consensus to censor Wikipedia. I'm at work, so I don't use the random article button. I'd recommend that they don't, either. Incidentally, all of the "We'll put porn on every page just to piss you guys off" responses seem a trifle moronic, and border on trolling. Take a deep breath and try to remember nobody will die either way.--Scimitar ^parley 14:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

While the project itself is not in article space, its purpose is to make POV changes in the main or image namespaces. This is different from promoting a point of view that all schools should be included: the school articles are NPOV, while the decency-adjusted articles would be biased in favor of a particular standard. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 14:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete due to incredibly dangerous precedent this project would set. Perceptions of decency are only useful when everyone is equally offended. --Several Times 14:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing wrong with a POV wikiproject, if there are people who want to discuss a subject in a POV way. If they write a policy on that subject, however, it should not be accepted unless it is discussed and by the wikipedia-wide community, and has reached consensus. (Which I hope it will not.) Eugene van der Pijll 14:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Arguments about suppression seem valid enough. VfD isn't the place to argue about the views of people. Sam Vimes 15:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, while I do not personally support the aims of this Wikiproject, I believe it is better to allow this kind of thing to operate in the open than to force it underground. Wikipedia has transformed in the last couple years from a small town into a large city; as Geni recently pointed out on the mailing list, you have to expect political parties to form. Trying to suppress one just makes it worse, and increases animosity. Better to have the aims of the group out in the open; openness is good. Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP. We are not here to vote on whether we agree with the aims of the project, but whether the project page can and should be deleted. These are two entirely different issues and must be treated as such. Just because we don't like this WikiProject and because it is our POV that it could be harmful to Wikipedia does not give us the right to delete its page. It is one thing to oppose this project and its actions and another to censor those who disagree with us. BD2412 sums this up perfectly with his quote above: "Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it." --Canderson7 15:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Week keep -- I would vote delete if I could be persuaded that censoring this project wouldn't be just as wrong as the project's plans to censor other parts of Wikipedia. --Ngb 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Notwithstanding the pros and cons of the project itself, I believe it should be allowed to publicise its existence. WLD 20:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

(Note - this vote was deleted - I haven't determined by who yet, but replacing it now. WLD 06:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

• Delete, who will determine what is decent...? Don't think so. BillyCreamCorn 16:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why, George W. Bush, of course! — JIP | Talk 16:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is merely a misguided and irrational attempt to force a POV down our collective throats, against WP:POINT and Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. This is just a pipe dream that will eventually -- and hopefully -- be abandoned, IMO. However, let's keep in mind that VfDing this page isn't how to go about dealing with this waste of resources and otherwise good editors; succinctly put, VfD articles, not the projects. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. However, I'd like to see the name of the project change to something less prima facie POV, and the project's supporters really should explain their reasons for the project much more thoroughly. See my comments on the project's talk page for details on what I'm getting at. - Haunti 16:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Never mind. Strong Delete. This whole thing has gotten out of hand over the past 24 hours, on both sides of the argument. Agriculture might have his heart in the right place, but even good intentions and assuming good faith can't save this project from the hellhole it's become. Let's put it out of its misery. - Haunti 22:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP as a protection of free speech and as a means of complying with applicable law. Many decry what they call the "censorship" goals of the projec, yet removing this project page would be attempting to silence the viewpoint of the project participants. Also, many delete votes take issue with the concept of determining what is decent, or deciding who gets to determien what is decent. This not a new concept, nor was it introduced by this project or these Wikipedians. We must understand that it is US and Florida law which mandate decency. As with any other law, citizens/corporations/groups have a responsibility to determine how the law applies to them and to abide by the law. The project members are trying to comply with that law. If you find the law ambiguous or not to your liking, then your disagreement is primarily with the legal system. Just because some members of Wikipedia happen to believe society would be better off without these laws, or with amended versions of the laws, that does not change current reality. As tempting as it may be to glorify the internet as some borderless utopia, the fact is that this project is not above or outside of the law. Johntex 17:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  don't you think that would be a better argument if there was such a law?--172.130.8.51 17:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you claiming there are no laws pertaining to indecency on the books today, or that none of them apply to Wikipedia, or something else? Johntex 17:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Democracy in action. nobs 17:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not needed, can cause very bad precedent. Elfguy 17:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, does not violate Wikipedia policy simply by advocacy. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:17, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Chris. Also, if only uneducational and obsene material will be removed, then I don't see any moral or policy violation. I think discussion is a MUCH better option than a VfD.Voice of All(MTG) 17:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - KeithD's comment, a few votes below, best sums up my objection - Tεxτurε 17:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per BD2412. Tomer ^TALK 17:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per many above arguments, including Raul654, A Link to the Past, and FCYTravis. ~<7Markaci7> 2005-08-17 T 17:48:39 Z
• Delete. The merits of images and articles on Wikipedia should be decided solely on encyclopaedic merit, and not on whether or not they're 'decent' in the eyes of a self-appointed group of people. This WikiProject comes very close, in my eyes, to undermining Wikipedia's NPOV. KeithD (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 17 18-24

• Delete ➥the Epopt 18:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Although I agree with all the Voltaire sentiments expressed above, as I read the project page, its aims are to develop and then enforce a policy that will have been determined by a small group of like-minded moral stentorians. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to go beyond free speech. It is one thing to deplore nudity; another to take actions to enfocre your POV. Dottore So 18:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. In theory their basic idea is not wrong or anti POV, but this should be part of an expansion or modification of the current vague Florida reference on the WP:NOT policy. Creating a cabal to "police" articles is not acceptable within the WP:NPOV guidelines.Gateman1997 18:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Im fairly new to Wiki-stuff and so far I love most of it! But I was shocked by some of the things on here, I just clicked on the Autofellatio image linked above and I cant beleive such filth is allowed on here. Im also worried about the pornography, especially big-bust ones, which is on here, not only because children are watching but because as someone said, the law could shut down Wikipedia (and take away this valuable resource) and because we will probably be blocked by many libraries! Ive heard that a lot of poor people can only read the internet at libraries so I take it that all you voting delete would want to strip poor people of the right to read wikipedia just so you can get your jollies seeing a man fellate himself! Lets set some standards people and let Wikipedia live! :) -DavidsCrusader 18:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment the picture autofellatio was vandalsim, it would have been deleted even if there wasn't a self proclaimed morality council, no one has threatened to block wiki from any libraries, and no one has threatend and legal action--172.130.8.51 18:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's called due dilligence. Just because no one has filed suit doesn't mean you can ignore the law. - Haunti 19:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Just so I can put your statement into context, are you a lawyer in the state of Florida? Your advice regarding due dilligence made me wonder. If not, what do you base your advice on? - Tεxτurε 19:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I'm not a lawyer in Florida, and I'm not offering legal advice. I'm a Wikipedian who doesn't want our beloved site to get shut down by potential lawsuits. If you care to read my comments on the Project's talk page, you'll see that I, like you, don't like where the Project is currently headed. However, it's irresponsible to ignore the possible implications of having potentially illegal materials on WP. That's pretty self-evident, and you shouldn't require a lawyer to advise you to not break the law. For all I know, I'm using the term "due diligence" incorrectly (I'm not in law school quite yet, ask me again in a couple of years). However, it's simply common sense to make every effort to avoid breaking the law, even if it's a stupidly moralistic one like the Decency Law in Florida. - Haunti 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • You say "it's simply common sense to make every effort to avoid breaking the law". So, tell me. Do you understand what the law is in this case? (Draft me a quick brief! :) I don't think you do. I don't think I do. (I'll give the same disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and not giving legal advice. I have taken law classes but have not taken the bar exam in any state.) Someone who is not a lawyer is using law to promote his/her agenda, imo. I do not plan to follow that individual's advice (lawyer or otherwise) without more information. I don't believe that this law has bypassed every first amendment law established and in place. More likely precedent/case law in both Florida and at the federal level makes this unenforceable to our medium and even more likely the law itself digs out exceptions for our use. - Tεxτurε 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I certainly don't claim to understand the totality of the law in this case. There appears to be a wealth of Supreme Court precidence that I haven't even begun to take a look at, and probably won't, not to mention anything else that might affect this issue. Regardless, how does my, or anyone's, current ignorance of the totality of the law constitute a reason for deleting a Project that might (emphasis on might) help us to further understand the effects of that law? Honestly, the way the Project is starting to lean, I'm not getting my hopes up. But an ad hominem attack on me for my knowledge or lack thereof does not reduce the effect of my comments. - Haunti 21:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
            • A lot of projects [i]might[/i] help us understand the effects of that law. But this one doesn't have it as a goal to understand the effects of that law, and shows no real intent to do so. I don't think there's any real question that Pandora Peaks is within the bounds of the law. But a member of this project has put it up for VfD, and this project has marked up the talk page, in the name of a "Godfearing Parent". Shouldn't we pay attention to what the effects are and probably will be, instead what they might be, especially if there's reason to think that's a smokescreen?--Prosfilaes 21:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Two things: 1) It's hardly fair to pass judgment on a Wikiproject that hasn't even been up for three full days. If all this negativity (deserved or not) had been put towards improving the project instead of dismantling it, we'd be in a much better situation now. 2) Just because one or two project members have gone and put up VfD notices on a few pages does not mean that the project is a bust. DavidsCrusader has taken the whole thing too far, for sure. But one overzealous person who listed themselves on the project page is not necessarily representative of the whole group. You may be right and this whole thing may end up being a moralistic attempt at censoring WP. But remember, when in doubt, assume good faith, at least until the "offender" has been given a chance to explain themselves or change their ways. - Haunti 21:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
                • It's a project with an agenda, that makes their agenda loud and clear in their name. The very name says that it's a moralistic attempt at censoring WP. I don't want to improve that; I want to stop it. It's not a neutral project at discovering how the Florida law applies to WP. Their group proclaims their cause clearly; their group members have crossed the line within the first three days. Assume good faith does not mean that you assume they're lying about their goals.--Prosfilaes 22:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • Based on their treatment of Pandora Peaks already, it has become VERY obvious what their goal is. They are setting themselves up as the Parents Television Council for Wikipedia, which is both POV and unacceptable.Gateman1997 22:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • An aside: My original posting sent back an error as if it did not post. Thinking of how I worded it and that I may have come off too harsh to you I decided against redoing it. Since it did, may as well discuss it. I do apologize if you took my words as harshly as they could have been received. - Tεxτurε 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I did (as you might have guessed), but apology accepted. - Haunti 21:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • One more thing: I did see some names on the project page indicating that they were signing up as observers to make sure it didn't get POV. When I read this I thought it was sabotage additions. (Like "improving" a bad article by making it silly.) Now that I understand your intent I applaud you. I would not have done so since it would have moved forward under an unproven premise: the project's interpretation of Florida law. - Tεxτurε 20:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
          • That's pretty much why I got involved. I saw (what I assumed to be) the intention of the project and thought it was a good idea, but things took a wayward turn almost immediately. If you read my comments on the talk page you'll see that I'm trying to get the authors to understand that their premises are mistaken, even though their intentions are good. I really don't think I'm getting through to them, though. - Haunti 21:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This "WikiProject" appears to be a project to impose a systemic bias upon Wikipedia. It therefore appears to be inherently in violation of the NPOV core principle. Its stated goals also appear to be in violation of WP:NOT. --FOo 18:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If you want a "keep wikipedia legal" project create that. Wynler 19:17:39, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

• Delete this flys in the face of the very openness that allows even humble AOL anons like myself to participate--205.188.116.12 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. WP:NOT is clear on the issue that this encyclopedia is not censored for minors. Florida law is subject to the judgment of the United States Supreme Court that an obscene work is "taken as a whole". That means Wikipedia as a whole. One or two raunchy images, usually deleted if they have no legitimate use in the encyclopedia, could never trump the incredible and manifest usefullness of this work as a reference. I believe the originators of this Wikiproject are well-meaning but they misinterpret both the Florida and federal obscenity laws and the project is all too susceptible to being used as a tool to enforce a small group's view of what is "decent". Incidentially, nothing in this vote should be construed as provision of legal services related to Florida law.--Briangotts (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you want your children to look at filth like Casey James and Pandora Peaks? I rest my case. -DavidsCrusader 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Not that it has much relevance to this VfD, but I'd have no problem with my children looking at either article, if they happened to stumble across them. I wouldn't call either article filth, I'd call them entries in an encyclopaedia. Therein lies the problem: what some people call filth, and would like removed from Wikipedia in the name of decency, others have no objection to. The definition of decency is decided by the members of the WikiProject, and thus is non-NPOV. KeithD (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • DavidsCrusader, you have proven my point. The supposed purpose of this project was to comply with Florida law. When I assert that these images do not constitute violations of that law, you fall back to the Helen-Lovejoy-ish "Won't somebody please think of the children?" The fact is, I'm a good enough parent to restrict the access of my children to that material that I believe is age-appropriate for them. I have no intention of supporting an attempt by you to restrict information on a universal encyclopedia to that material which meets your nebulous definition of "decency". --Briangotts (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I am still talking in reference to the law. Accordin to Agroculture, it is illegal to disseminate pornography to minors in Florida. By hosting information on Casey James and others for FREE where anyone can access it, you might be disseminating pornography to minors which is illegal and could theoretically get the Wikipedia SHUT DOWN. Do you want that? Also, what is wrong with thinking about the children? I am a good parent too and I would never let my children use the internet but there are some parents out there who arent as good parents as me and you and we dont want the sins of the parents to come down on a kid. There could be some really lousy parents and because we didnt do anything they could come here and grow up to be freakish harlots and destroy their lives even though it is not their fault that their parents were bad. See my point? -DavidsCrusader 22:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • • "we dont want the sins of the parents to come down on a kid. There could be some really lousy parents and because we didnt do anything they could come here and grow up to be freakish harlots and destroy their lives even though it is not their fault that their parents were bad."
            This attitude absolutely boggles my mind. I genuinely don't mean to offend, but even the word "harlot" reads like something out of a 19th century temperance tract. The idea that seeing a woman with (horrible) oversized breasts could destroy someone's life is so weird it amazes me that anyone could believe it. This gives me some insight into why some people are so keen to censor the Wikipedia and no, it doesn't give me any more sympathy for their cause. PeteVerdon 12:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Are you at all familar with the Miller test and court cases on pornography? You're labelling things as pornographic that aren't even pornographic in the common use of that word, much less in the very narrow legal sense of that word. (There's argument that recent Supreme Court decisions wouldn't accept the banning of simulated child porn.) Wikipedia is not censored for children, and frankly, I, and I suspect many of my other Wikipedians, don't believe that it would have the effects you believe it would on children.--Prosfilaes 22:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree entirely with Briangotts and Prosfilaes. True, Casey James and Pandora Peaks work in pornography. However, the articles about them aren't pornographic. I don't see any closeups of bared breasts or genitals, or any sexual intercourse going on, in those articles. From what I understand, they comply with Florida law. Mentioning pornography exists is not indecent - showing pornography is. DavidsCrusader seems to indeed have a "Won't somebody please think of the children?" viewpoint. We don't need any self-appointed "high morality board" to protect us. — JIP | Talk 04:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
            • From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/SaRenna Lee, by DavidsCrusader:
              Shes a god-fearing woman so shes not as bad as the other Jezebels (strike-through by DavidsCrusader, not by me)
              This is even worse. Now he's bringing Christianity into this, as if it somehow had anything to do with pornography. Whatever happened to your precious "freedom of religion"? Oh, wait, it means that everyone is free to believe in Our Saviour, The Holy LORD Jesus Christ, and nothing else. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Well said. If possible I am even more strongly opposed to this project than before. It is clear that at least some of its proponents are using "the law" (which they evidently do not understand, and misstate with a degree of aplomb that would have gotten me flogged in law school) as a smokescreen for their true agenda of removing what they find offensive. Why not Michaelangelo's David? Many others appear to be well-meaning but are panicky about the ramifications of a law they likewise clearly do not understand. No single item on Wikipedia can be obscene (legally speaking) because Wikipedia will be judged for literary, scientific or other communal worth as a whole, much as any encyclopedia would. --Briangotts (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, maybe not flogged per se, unless a stern professorial tonguelashing counts. --Briangotts (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but both the project and this VfD are misguided. A policy change should be proposed, considered, and defined, not implemented by a few users as a project. VfD is not dispute resolution. Gazpacho 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why are you voting to keep it as a project by a few users? - Tεxτurε 20:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    I voted only to keep the content of the page. Binary voting makes life easier for admins. Gazpacho

• Delete. The first stated purpose of this project is to "coordinate and promote standards of decency on Wikipedia", which means that its primary goal is censorship, which is not permitted on WikiPedia. The title of the project supports this interpretation, as what is "decent" is intrinsically POV. As it is now, the legal arguments are secondary to the project. If someone were to create a project which focused only on the legal aspects and not on the decency aspects, my feelings might be different. ManoaChild 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. --Randy 20:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep When did it become unacceptable to say that there are some things not appropriate in Wikipedia? DJ Clayworth 20:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It has not "become unacceptable to say that there are some things not appropriate in Wikipedia". What does that have to do with this VfD? You can say anything you want. However, the community can vote to remove standards they do not agree with. - Tεxτurε 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I sense serious confusion over what we are voting on here. Do you really see this as a vote for this project's standard or goal? I voted keep, but I've said nothing about whether I think this wikiproject is good or needed or anything. I honestly don't know if what these people are concerned about is something we all should care about. I just see a bunch of people wanting to address a particular issue they have with wikipedia. They want to do it in a wikiproject. Much like the people on Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion are concerned about and against deletionism. I don't need to be an inclusionist to let those people have their wikiproject. And I don't need to be against big boobs and nude images on wikipedia to let the people here have their project. At least that's the reasoning behind my keep vote. Have I misunderstood something? Shanes 22:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No. It doesn't change my vote but I now understand your point of view. You have sound reasons. Mine are different. - Tεxτurε 22:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An intrisically POV project that does nothing for Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 20:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: And they tend to polarise things. I think we should find a picture for Pandora Peaks where she doesn't have her hands down her pants, but I hate to use it even as an example on the VfD page when I know that the Wikipedians for Decency have staked it out on the Talk page and even put the whole article up for VfD. --Prosfilaes 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. If this stays, I will be strongly inclined to start Wikiproject: Shi'ites for Decency, and attempt to censor any content not in accord with Shari'a law. Barno 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete please this is not a move in the best of directions Yuckfoo 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Are we going to censor a group of people discussing censorship? Just thinking a moment about that contradiction more than fulfills my daily requirement for irony. -- llywrch 21:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the whole concept of decency is very POV and very un-wiki. If Wikipedia is in violation of Florida law, then we should look into moving the servers, not compromising our values. --Outlander 21:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Surely the key point in here is that it hasn't been established that the Florida Decency Law affects Wikipedia, or to what extent it does affect it. Given that it is accepted on all sides of the debate that 'Wikipedia is not censored for minors' is a good policy, then we have to examine to what extent it may impact on image policy - and this is a legal question and not really a matter of Wikipedia policy judgment. Therefore I vote rename as Wikipedia:Wikiproject Florida Decency law investigation, and target it at lawyers who know about it. After reading Jimbo's email, it seems there really isn't a problem, and therefore I change vote to delete. I suspect that the Wikiproject is really an attempt to subvert the 'no censorship for minors' policy in a POV way. David | Talk 09:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - just all around silly. Slac speak up! 22:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ,bad precendent yadda yadda wikipedia is not yadda yadda most of the salient points have been covered before yadda yadda. Incidentally, I fail to see how this is a wikiproject. The project I nominally contribute to, the bird one, is about creating standardised bird articles, not deleting ones we don't like. Most of the other projects seem to be about that too. If people want to create policy, or form a consensus, do it in the right places. And then watch the community's reaction to their prudish sensibilities. (Incidentally, why would any kid looking for filth come here. 10 keystrokes and one click on google is all it takes to find a world of filth on the web!)Sabine's Sunbird
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 22:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete. Wikipedia isn't censored. No way I'll be endorsing a morality police squad. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

A prime example of the kind of overreaching red-pen agenda I'm concerned about: The project template has just been added to Bisexuality and Homosexuality. This is entirely different than discussing, say, an image of autofellatio. Would we see it added to Jerry Falwell? I find him wholly indecent. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The edit differences are [2] for Bisexuality and [3] for Homosexuality. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, now homosexuality and bisexuality are "pornographic" and "likely to get Wikipedia shut down"? Somebody ought to tell these guys that we don't live in the 14th century any more. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I disagree with the project but deleting the project page isn't the way to fix the problem, nor will I expect that it will (see FCYTravis' comment above, which I agree with). Also, this does not fall under any criterion in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that is resolved at VfD. JYolkowski // talk 22:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Perfectly valid set of editing ambitions, and a project page to co-ordinate those, just like with many other interest groups who co-ordinate their editing. Should be entirely above board - and it's better having such a thing out in the open. zoney ♣ talk 22:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Futher Mucker, I wrote a long comment on here earlier today, but my connection timed out and I lost it. If anybody would like to know why i'm voting the way I am, just contact my talk page. I'm sure this will stick around for awhile anyway. And Jimbo, if Florida gives you any problems, I vote making redundant servers across the globe... or at least moving the main servers to Sealand ;-) Karmafist 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: I'm 99% sure the page itself is just a troll. But even if meant in earnest, WP already has editorial mechanisms for appropriateness. And what is important is encyclopedic quality, not so-called decency. By the existing standards, some "indecent" content might well be candidate for deletion, but let's do that the right (existing) way. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

• Current vote tally is 62 "Delete" to 42 "Keep" +/- 3 votes.Gateman1997 22:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep What difference does it make? Let 'em have their club. Nothing that group comes up with is going to change what goes into articles. Did someone appoint them king and I didn't get the memo? To think that Florida law is going to shut down this site for some random image on some article is completely absurd. If some group of fussbudgets wants to worry about that anyway, or pretend to worry about it as a cover for something else, I don't care. Better to have them come out of the woodwork anyway. (Filth like Casey James, for Pete's sake.) Agree with Geogre, BD2412, and a buncha others too. -EDM 23:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Wikipedia:Wikiproject censorship and delete. --Carnildo 23:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I don't really see how anyone can vote "delete" to a wikiproject page, especially this one. It's like saying "there are no indecent pages, except for this one?" (in other news, "there are no absolutes... except this one"?). Is it so hard to argue rather than censor?--67.101.68.103 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or at least rename "WikiProject Inserting Systemic Bias." -- Visviva 23:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (changed vote, see below)
• Keep and Ignore: Let them have their club. If they start revert wars, they can always be banned. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. To what's been said above, little can be added; mainly, the problem is that the project was designed to push a POV about "decency" and is basically the work of People for the Removal of Undesired Depictions of Encyclopedic Stuff (PRUDES). I was also disturbed by the way that 'Bible', 'Islam', and other articles were spammed. I suggest that this project be deleted and that a more general "IFDPatrol" project be started, which is based on the criteria of appropriate license, use in an article, and encyclopedic nature. "Voting our conscience" is irrelevant to Images and Other Media for Deletion. The project encourages people to vote on the wrong set of criteria. --Peter Kirby 23:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• I change my vote to Keep and Rename, after reading Jimbo's 2 cents(this is more what I meant in the first place anyway). That is, I would like it renamed to "IFDPatrol." --Peter Kirby 09:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This shouldn't be a Wikiproject, but a discussion on policy at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion. Martg76 23:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't that an argument for moving, rather than deleting? -- Visviva 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a perfectly valid attempt to improve the project. The non-censorship thing is not one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, so it is negotiable. Some people seem to think that all attempts to improve standards of taste are evil, but Wikipedia is probably the only major encyclopedia that has ever existed which makes no attempt to restrain the use of controversial images.

As for bias Wikipedia has very obvious bias - it is controlled by groovy permissives. This reflects the fact it was set up by a soft core pornographer, but it is time to transcend that unfortunate origin. Osomec 23:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment, User:Jimbo was a pornographer?Gateman1997 00:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, he did run the Bomis adult search engine. Vacuum c 02:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's also probably the only major encyclopedia that has ever existed that tries to be NPOV. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Prosfilaes 06:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Moving my vote from 23:24 Aug 17 up here. Vacuum c 02:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 18

• Strong delete - Any project based upon POV pushing should be deleted as a matter of common sense. The entire concept of the group is against policy and counterintellectual. There is also precedent for deletion, like when the FACTS group (organized to push "respect" for creation "science" was formed and killed. DreamGuy 00:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Andycjp 18th August 2005
• Delete This project is blatantly unnecessary. Wikipedia seems to be in the clear legally so far as images used in articles, and orphaned images are already regularly ifd'ed. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deleting this will only fan the flames. I don't entirely agree with the way the project has been set up, but it should be modified (and possibly moved to a different name), not deleted. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per BD2412. I don't like where this leads from a morlistic viewpoint, but I am trusting that admins will not succumb to pressure from moralistic interest groups pushing an agenda of "moral purity". To such people I spurn thee and rebuke thee! Hamster Sandwich 01:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Plus, it's like when clowns all pile into a car. Then at least you know where they all are. Hamster Sandwich 01:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless an NPOV standard for what is/is not indecent can be established. -Seth Mahoney 01:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Seth, that was the point. 1 of the 2 major purposes was to initiate that discussion. --Noitall 01:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I should have been more clear. My point was that such a position isn't to be found. Let's look at some possibilities:

1. Biblical standards of decency. Obviously POV.

2. Legal standards of decency. Since laws change from place to place, this is POV too.

3. Let's vote on it! The position that majority should get to define what is and is not decent is a POV, and any standard they would set up is necessarily POV against a minority POV.

-Seth Mahoney 00:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Creating a standard is not impossible; without a standard we degenerate to the lowest possible denominator. As is evident by some of the things that pass for "encyclopedic" on WIKI, it can get very low indeed. Storm Rider 01:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh, your demoninator, not mine. See how POV works? -Seth Mahoney 00:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and move to BJAODN, thanks guys, I needed the laugh--172.167.11.125 01:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move out of Wikiproject space. We already have a precedent of Wikipedia:Wikipedians XYZ pages, and this seems like it would be more comfortable there. There is, unfortunately, precedent for keeping political groups on Wikipedia. It would be silly to delete any of them unless we can delete all of them. -- Visviva 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I sympathize with User:Agriculture. This VfD is bringing out the worst in the community. -- Visviva 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree. I think just about everyone here has completely forgotten themselves in this mess. It's a damn shame. - Haunti 01:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Proves my point...stand next to somewone in a line they'll be nice to you...put them behind the screen of the computer and shelter them and they show what cowards they truly are with the slanders they have lodged against a few here. Anon Ip's votes should all be summarily dismissed.--MONGO 03:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thirded. A shame indeed. Whoever thought that using personal attacks would be useful should read up on their policies. --Titoxd 02:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, per Harmil and Katefan0. Extraordinary Machine 01:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sarge Baldy 01:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Exploding Boy 02:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and send whoever created it back to whatever blog they came from, a ruling wiki-council would make this into a message board, or a blog, but not an exchange of ideas, or information--172.173.85.232 02:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. The concept of "Decency" is POV and is too ingrained in this project for a rename/move to fix that. ESkog 03:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. If desired, those involved can fork to the Crazypedia, where the Faith-based community can leave those of us in the Reality-based community behind. Flyers13 03:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for censorship. Do what I do: Cover the right side of the computer screen with your hand when visiting the autofellatio article. Acetic Acid 03:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks Karmafist! --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I understand that there may be people out there who object to elements of Wikipedia. They are more than welcome to start their own competing encyclopedia. In fact I encourage it. The more the merrier, I say. 23skidoo 03:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What element of Wikipedia does the project contradict...? I mean, it would make sense if they were opposed to neutrality, or objected to the idea of consensus-based editing, that you could suggest that they leave. But it doesn't look to me like anybody is objecting to any fundamental element of Wikipedia. Everyking 04:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP How ironic is it that you're all trying to censor someone for alleged censorship, heil comrade!--I-2-d2 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is even more ironic that you should say this. Being that in the history of this very page you were deleting votes you didn't agree with. You are under consideration for being a sockpuppet made just to post VfD pages on those you don't agree with, and you tend to post vandalism warnings in the pages those who profess views other than your own. All in all I think you are a poster child for arbitrary censorship when it fits your views. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 11:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. The concept of "decency" defies NPOV clarification, and such a project will never achieve NPOV. Additional comment - I have attempted to vote here once and was (I assume) overridden by someone else ignoring the "page altered" warning - this history could be quite a squirrely mess by the end if anyone attempts to actually count this. ESkog 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Aren't images screened in the same way recent changes are monitored, through a list? --Zoop 04:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, yet again someone has deleted my vote it seems, all in the name of "anit"censorship, I guess, you can never tell--I-2-d2 04:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is somewhat ironic since you were deleting others votes earlier in this thread, See my comment in your restored vote above. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 11:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete Wikipedia isn't, and shouldn't be, censored for minors - the normal editorial process should solve any problems. Unsigned comment by 68.236.34.82 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep These folks are wrong in where they're coming from and wrong about the Florida law. (The people saying a vote to delete is censorship are also wrong; they can talk about it elsewhere, and only the gov't can censor you.) But there's no reason not to let them have a place to discuss these views on WP. And there's no reason WP shouldn't be decent. Example: a picture of autofellatio in the autofellatio article is decent. A picture of autofellatio in the Disney article would be indecent. See how that works? --DavidConrad 04:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep and Rename - Voting here as an ordinary editor. I think that it would be a good thing overall if we had an ongoing community process with input from a lot of different people of different viewpoints to bring a little bit more consistency and clearly formulated policy in this area. I don't think this is primarily a legal issue (though in some very difficult to imagine cases, I suppose it could be) but rather an issue of quality. I think that neither 'delete all nudity' nor 'never delete any nudity lest the censors win any victories' are persuasive positions and that instead, we need to think hard about the issue. 'Wikipedians for Decency' is a one-sided title for such a working group, though. I would suggest something more neutral. There is such a thing as delicate content, and there is such a thing as a mature and respectful way to handle it. We are constantly being trolled on this issue, too, i.e. I think that opinions *within* wikipedia are not the same as the arguments we're forced into by people who post absurd images just to tweak us. Again, to repeat, I am not making policy here, just throwing in my two cents worth like anyone else.--Jimbo Wales 05:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I disagree with the aims of the project and how they are doing it. However, I do believe that it is right to let the project exist. -- JamesTeterenko 05:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete WP:NOT. --Irpen 05:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Makes it easier to keep track of the few misguided users who are caught up in this moral panic. Rhobite 05:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• This is probably the most interesting case I've ever seen on VfD. Nothing compares. I mean, certainly, I think their aims are not only not laudable but actively contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, but that's not the point here. I am, for now, voting keep, with as much weakness as can be emphasized. Now, if this becomes a breeding ground for people changing every penis picture to a daffodil or something, I'll change my mind post-haste. Lord Bob 07:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE It reminds me of Thomas BowdLer. Wikipedia may have content that is objectionable or offensive. If you don't like an article, hit alt+x and go to a random article. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 08:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I disagree with the "Delete" voters who cry censorship. Wikipedians are free to argue for removal of particular images, etc., and are even free to argue that the encyclopedia should be censored for minors (though I'd disagree with them). My answer to "Let 'em have their club" (EDM) is that it's fine if they want to call it a club. They can coordinate their arguments, assign images/articles to be reviewed for possible attack so the "decency" users don't duplicate their efforts, etc. The problem is that to call their club a "WikiProject" would confuse many people into thinking it's official, especially since it's plausible that there could be an official organ (sorry, couldn't resist) charged with enforcing a standard about offensive material. As Sabine's Sunbird points out below, it also doesn't meet the definition of a WikiProject. Can't the "club" just be set up as a subpage on some user's space? Deletion of the WikiProject won't prevent anyone from userfying the current content. JamesMLane 09:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep, even though I fundamentally disagree with it. Asking for a page to be deleted on anti-censorship grounds is stupid. Robin Johnson 10:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Any project like this is inherently POV. I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased if I formed a project to push a communist viewpoint throughout the wiki. Besides you should have a pretty good idea of what to expect while visiting the autofellatio page GreatGodOm 10:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This looks like a project to push a certain POV, which projects should never do. --Conti|✉ 10:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Life's too short to waste time on this round in circles debate. DavidFarmbrough 12:29 GMT 18 August 2005
• Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 10:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is interesting that those that argue for free-speech in other places are seeking to strangle it here. Trödel|talk 10:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on the grounds that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and that this is an inherently POV concept. The members of this project are welcome to open debate on changing Wikipedia policies, but a Wikiproject is not the way to do that. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 11:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The project in its present name and form is unfortunate, but censorship of censorship is still censorship. Editors are allowed to object to all sorts of things. There are groups of deletionists, inclusionists, martial artists, Buddhists, etc., this is objectively no different. Why shouldn't users who are honestly offended or at least disgusted by something they feel is distasteful be allowed to say so? Or act on that judgment? Whether a statement of such a feeling or an action based on such a feeling should be allowed to stay in (or at least influence) an article will be determined by consensus of everyone concerned as with everything else. Ideally, this should be just another tool for a group of editors who agree on something. Fire Star 11:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Zeno of Elea 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with vengeance, this project tears the community apart, creates an Us vrs. Them mentality. Wikipedia is about working together towards concensus, we shouldn't support clicks of ideologs, this is the opposite of concensus building. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 11:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The concept of ensuring Wikipedia does not fall foul of laws is a valid one. This project goes significantly beyond that limited aim. I would consider the "this page is being watched for indecency" boilerplate of the project itself an irritating form of censorship. Look beyond the 'autofellatio' discussion. If this project is allowed to remain, then it creates a precedent for all sorts of censorhip on the basis of jumping at all sorts of legal and moral shadows. The Land 12:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Censor your own internet if you want, but leave mine alone. Creating a project to bring things in line with some arbitrary standard of "decency" smacks of both censorship, and of moving everything in line with some gradoise "moral code". This is an encyclopedia, occasionally it will have to cover "indecent" subject matter. Allowing this "project" to work will only result in massive fights between the editors of so-called "indecent" content and the project's members. Arcuras 12:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A solution -- a very bad solution is search of a problem. Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. --Calton | Talk 12:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete! This is antiwiki censorship, and absolutely ridiculous. --Merovingian (t) (c) 13:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The responses from this project's opponents - which have often taken the form of crude as well as vicious personal attacks - have only confirmed the need for some minimal standards to be enforced. Many educators forbid their students from making any use of Wikipedia, which is widely regarded as a silly and often vulgar 'blog' - meaning that if it's ever going to be taken seriously as an 'encyclopedia', it badly needs to be cleaned up. AWilliamson 14:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Many educators also try to forbit their students from learning about evolution and sex education. However, that does not mean we should remove references to evolution and sex from Wikipedia to appease them. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, or their moralistic teachers. - Haunti 14:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I was referring to secular university professors, not fundamentalists. Most educators, regardless of their political or religious views or the age level of their students, generally want materials to consist of something other than four-letter words and photos of the editors' private parts. AWilliamson 14:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • 1) Aside from vandalism (which is reverted almost immediately in most cases) the four letter words and pictures of private parts are kept to either articles where their inclusion is justified, or in user pages, talk pages, etc. (which people probably wouldn't be using for school projects anyway). 2) Most secular university professors insist on students researching peer-reviewed articles or books for classwork, not encyclopedias. This is the case regardless of whether the encyclopedia in question is Wikipedia or Brittanica. - Haunti 15:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Rather than argue on a page which is supposed to be devoted to voting, I will merely make the following brief comments concerning the two points you made: 1) regarding the issue of justifiable usage, the project in question was designed to address precisely the question of which standards should determine when it is deemed justified or necessary to include such material - for example, I think it might be reasonably debated whether a reader who is checking an editor's credentials really needs to be treated to a nude photo of that editor displayed on his/her personal page, given that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a porn site or personal blog. 2) Concerning usage by college students: I have seen university professors debating, in academic mailing lists, whether or not to allow their students to use Wikipedia, since many students routinely use the web for their research. While most of the opposition from professors tends to stem from the erroneous nature of the articles at Wikipedia, the vulgarity of the site is not going to inspire anyone's confidence, either. AWilliamson 08:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Precisely...as far as I am concerned, tagging images and articles in some arbitrary manner just because it doesn't fit into a few people's morality is not where the project needs to be. This project needs to address what is and what isn't going to give it the credibility to become the source of encyclopedic information, bar none, on the web. You are 100% right that there are some articles and images here that keep Wikipedia from overcoming this issue of credibility.--MONGO 08:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • If you think that's what Wikipedia articles are about, what are you doing here in the first place? — JIP | Talk 14:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • That's hardly fair. I've seen lots of five and six letter words used on Wikipedia. I even saw a seven letter word once, but it was pluralising a six letter word, so I don't know if it counts. Admittedly, editors posting photos of their private parts is out of control here at Wikipedia, but I think we're down to about 48% of editors doing so, and it's becoming fewer by the day. (That said, JIP's were very nice, so maybe it's worth paying the price). Or WTF?! KeithD (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. --SPUI (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: This is nothing more than an attempt at censorship. People are titled to their opinions, but this is more than voicing an opinion. Nuke it. --K1vsr (talk) 15:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• BRUTALLY STRONG DELETE prudish people who easily blush should maybe not be reading wikipedia anyway.--Wiglaf 15:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep. There should be a common forum for the issues which are discussed at various articles over and over again. mikka (t) 16:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since this fails to qualify for vfd at this stage. Erwin Walsh 16:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So a project that may not meet the requirements to be a project is not ready for a VfD? Vegaswikian 02:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep/Object Before anyone calls me one, I should point out that I'm hardly a values voter, I mean I even supported Clinton, but please, if we delete this page via a VfD it sets a very bad precident for other POLICY pages, already today, someone has started a VfD on WP:NPOV, if this is allowed to become OFFICIAL we will lose the very laws that govern wiki, and this will degenerate into total anarchy, until we eventually reach such a low, that even federal law demands us to be shut down--152.163.100.7 16:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Funny how the user who put WP:NPOV up for VFD has a VERY similar IP address to you. Just thought I'd point that out. *cough* sockpuppets *cough* Gateman1997 16:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. How many times does it have to be said? Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED for the protection of minors. ral315 17:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per George's comment above: (#August 17 12-15). As pointed out here: User talk:Filiocht#Why I won't be back any time soon, the true "liberal" agenda is the fostering of reason and knowledge against unreason and ignorance, not trying to stifle dissent. Paul August ☎ 17:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's against policy and divisive. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Let it fail of its own accord. Attempts to suppress dissenting voices, no matter how inane the voices are, ordinarily end up making those voices louder and prominent. Instances of inappropriate behavior can be dealt with as they occur. Judge Magney 20:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per policy, what Wikipedia is not, and POV basis. --nutjob 22:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I actually felt sick to my stomach upon discovering this group. Is there nothing those prudish brownshirts don't want to turn into a travesty of "morality and decency"? I never even considered this so-called "Moral Majority" bullcrap would pervade Wikipedia. Perhaps I've been naive. There is no excuse for censorship, EVER. If these religious nuts can't see how they're perverting the whole foundation of Wikipedia and everything it stands for then I pity their narrow minds. This might be perceived as unneccesary strong and harsh words, but believe me I am holding back. --Lomedae 22:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Inherently POV.Heraclius 23:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see what can be done here that can't be done through wikipedia policy pages and proposing policies under the ordinary system. There's already a system to get these views heard. Seems kinda redundant. --Sketchee 23:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep a group of editors with a common interest. I think they have a right to form a project (though the template was very misguided). We shouldn't be squashing debate. Having said that, I'm appalled by the original goals and I find the reinvention of the project as a protection of our legal status dishonest. A project that debated standards or legal issues would be more effective. Rx StrangeLove 23:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 19 and later

• Delete and burn the hard drive the page was on Comstockery is not NPOV.

--Gorgonzilla 00:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• agree ^^^ but only after we have hanged it until it was nearly dead, cut off its generative organs and fed them to the dogs, removed its bowels and burnt them on a fire, and quartered its limbs with a blunt sword - for that it is the fate that these fundamentalists have planned for us Albatross2147 11:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. And hope it fails; the concept is flawed and the execution would likely be more disruptive than the problem it is supposed to address. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It already has failed. Tverbeek 12:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Oppressing discussion seems very un-Wikipedia. -- DS1953 03:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

  There's plenty of place for discussion all over Wikipedia; that's called the Talk namespace. However, we do have rules for what is and isn't allowed in that discussion: for instance, we don't allow personal attacks. That isn't "oppressing discussion"; it's a ground-rule which allows discussion to take place. One of our basic rules is called NPOV, which means that we don't try to push our personal biases into the encyclopedia. An organized campaign for the purpose of pushing an anti-sex bias is a violation of the NPOV policy, just as an organized campaign to commit personal attacks would be a violation of the no personal attacks policy. --FOo 05:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  That's totally twisted logic. A POV against certain images is no further from policy than a POV in favor of them. They are both matters of personal opinion. Inclusionism and deletionism are matter of personal opinion as well. As humans we all have lots of opinions. Everyking 06:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  I'd gladly argue against a so-called "WikiProject" whose purpose was to upload nude pictures into unrelated articles, as against one whose purpose appears to be to censor nude pictures from relevant articles. The former would be an organized campaign for the purpose of violating the anti-vandalism rules, just as the present matter is an organized campaign for censorship and bias. --FOo 19:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep --- nothing wrong with it. "find alternatives for inappropriate content as defined by Wikipedia policy" is a noble cause. If project members exert good faith and common sense, they will just be part of the debate. If they try to censor, they will fail miserably. But there is no need to push their cooperation to off-site channels. If possible rename to something less provocative. dab (ᛏ) 06:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is "inappropriate" is an abstract term and means different things to different people. The same goes for "decency", "obscenity" and "offensive". What one person considers offensive will not offend everybody. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 23:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You are correct there are differnces between a pervert's view of indecent and a normal person's idea of indecent. The objective is to discuss what is appropriate given a specific article's subject; the subject will guid and direct. You are creating a straw argument and it is a knee-jerk reaction. Most of the delete's comments scream about censorship and prefer to be the censors; delete anything that disagrees with their sensitiviites. Remember the object is simply to discuss. I find most of you are completely unwilling to discuss the issue while screaming censorship to be like chicken little. Be calm, the sky is not falling and it is okay to discuss decency.
  • If renaming, I'm pulling for Wikipedians for the Promulgation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, myself. Flyers13 18:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The systemic effort to eliminate POV's through the use of processes like VfD is wrong. This group will not get far if they try to do the things that many of the voters to delete allege. Decency is not a euphamism for prude but has a clear meaning and one reason I rarely edit now is the lack of decency on the wiki - especially in how users with traditional views are treated. Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 10:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Ill-conceived, incompatible with NPOV, and a blinking, high-gravity magnet for every would-be censor and freak out there, just begging to abused... as it already has. A proven bad idea. Tverbeek 10:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Inherently POV. Having a bunch of prudes dictating what is decent is ultimately bad for Wikipedia. (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 12:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and revise - This project has a right to exist, but it cannot turn into a special interest group. Agree with the goal of the group, as long as it does not remove meaningful content from Wikipedia. This should not be a censor, but a group that clears all reckless, obvious, and meaningless indecency. Agree with Jimbo, Tony Sidaway, Raul654, Doc glasgow, JIP, Everyking, Sdedeo, Haunti, Gazpacho, Katefan0, Robin Johnson, and believe in the efforts of Agriculture. Disagree with Project2501a, DavidsCrusader, and I-2-d2. However, I doubt this will ever get to consensus, bringing us back where we came from. --JJLeahy 16:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Problem is, who decides what is "indecent"?Gateman1997 17:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A bunch of Wikipedians yelling at each other? I know that doesn't sound like an appealing option, but that's how VfD works, after all. --JJLeahy 20:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not agree with the goals of the program, and I feel that they are superfluous to processes already available here. If there's content that 'moral conservatives' are uncomfortable with on Wikipedia, they should bring it up on article and image talk pages, use RfC and take things to VfD and IfD as necessary, keeping in mind WP:NOT censored for minors. I don't see what practical effect this group will have. That said, if they want a WikiProject, I have a hard time seeing why that is more unreasonable that the Pokemon Adoption Center. Their very existence does imply POV, but everyone has a POV. I think that there has been unhelpful vitriolic conduct on both sides of the fence this week, and a fair amount of melodramatic behavior that reflects badly on Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Very well put. -EDM 16:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as far as practicality goes, I've noticed that they've engendered a long, thoughtful, more or less civil discussion of the issue(s) on this VfD. I've seen worse, anyway... Fire Star 19:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as you can see in Wikipedia's WP:NOT, FAQ, and Wikipedia:Profanity, Wikipedia is not censored. This is the Internet, and you can not avoid profanity completely. However, deletion of the page does not imply that anyone can say whatever he wants to anybody. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this page is not in wikipedia's or my interest. Dmn € Դմն 23:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctant, but strong, keep. I think they are dead wrong, but entitled to organize this way just like any other group sharing an interest. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant, but strong, delete - I am usually against deleting this project. I can't see what the project could do without violating wikipedia policy. This link is Broken 13:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kaldari 19:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In America, you have the Bill of Rights. With the WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, the rights have YOU! Toothpaste 19:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete Keeping will simply encourage them. Christiaan 20:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Who are these people to decide what's decent and what's not? :: DarkLordSeth 20:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - You can't combat censorship by censoring the censors... Evercat 21:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As a side note, I wonder how many articles didn't get created or edited while "decency" was being bandied about. Friejose 22:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why delete it? --Matt Yeager 22:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- it is not a matter of censorship or no, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors: a Wikiproject defined as and taking the activities this one is appears to be more harm than good. To be clear: the project seems inherently POV, it posts votes for media deletion as alerts. It seems rather clear the project is not just aimed at establishing policy, or established at expanding a topic area, such as writing articles about decency, but rather inherently aimed at coordinated POV pushing --Mysidia (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — POV to the core. Davenbelle 06:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This is proposing censorship, and if you start doing that on the grounds of one jurisdiction then you'll have no argument against the others (for example China, certain religions). Kids have always gone to the 'naughty' sections / entries in books in the past, at least here we catch non-encyclopedic content quickly. Let stop this waste of time discussion and get back to creating great articles. --Vamp:Willow 08:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, am I the only one seeing a strong resonance with the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee? --Vamp:Willow 09:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete: decency is so arbitrary around the world that an international project should wield censorship only as necessary to keep out of legal liability (that's the policy, anyway). A project with goals similar to the original intent of this one would be OK - WP for legality, I suppose. --Nineworlds 19:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Nineworlds has a total of 6 edits. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

True - I'm fairly newly pseudonymious. I have been making corrections and a couple of articles under 137.222 addresses for some time. --Nineworlds 19:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Intention of project seems to be to impose censorship. While i can see how opponents of censorship could also use the page, i do not see it is a proper wiki aim Sandpiper 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV pushing Cursive 03:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - smacks of censorship / POV. No place on WP - Pete C ^✍ 06:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Karl Meier 08:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and if kept, strong Rename. I have nothing against Wikipedians who want to organize themselves because of concerns over materials they find offensive because of sexual issues or the way they are displayed. Calling themselves "for decency" if this is what their real problem is, though, strikes me as deeply misleading. Smerdis of Tlön 19:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppets

• Keep No reaon these guys shouldn't be allowed a voice of their own--JoWiki 21:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I don't see what the big deal is, people have blown this way out of proportion--EagleEyedScout 21:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Just my huble opinion, this would be just fine with me, I don't see anything wrong with what they're doing, I'd have to be pretty insecure to be threatened by them--WonderBread 21:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP I can apreciate asthetic beuty as much as the next guy, but even I can see where we need to draw the line, were their membership made a little more exclusive (IE, less trolls) they could become a very valuble asset--BirdWatcher 21:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep I don't see any reason to demonize a group of people, just for watching out for Florida Law, if the servers really are located in Florida, then certian types of questionable content could really pose a serious threat of shutting us down--BirdWatcher 21:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: people here have raised some very serious legal issues, and I'd hate to see something like this drag down wikipidia with it--LegalBreifs 21:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep as much as I hate the idea of censorship, I can kind of see where they're coming from, and I can relate--Dr&MrsSmith6146 21:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Hmm. JoWiki, EagleEyedScout, WonderBread, BirdWatcher, LegalBreifs [sic], Dr&MrsSmith6146. Can you say 'sockpuppets'? -EDM 21:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep As much as a hate these prudes and these psycho soccer moms gone wild, I have to admit they haven't actually done anything, besides it should be fun to see them collapse in on themselves, and easier to watch if it's all on one page--FreePeopleAreHappyPeople 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy KeepCensoring the censors is no way to deal with censorship--AHhhhhhhhhhHhhhhhhHhhhHhhhhH!!!!!!!!!!! 21:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tally of Signed Votes

I've spent forever counted the votes(using tallies and the "find" option of the browser to avoided counting things twice or missing votes).Voice of All(MTG) 04:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

A list of the votes by name can be found on the talk page. Karmafist 20:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Aug 17 00-06:
KEEP: 3

DELETE: 8

Aug 17 06-12:
KEEP: 10

DELETE: 21

Aug 17 12-18:
KEEP: 27

DELETE: 17

Aug 18:
KEEP: 20

DELETE: 38

Aug 17 18-24:
KEEP: 11

DELETE: 20

Aug 19+:
(as of 8/21/05)(please keep up to date)

KEEP: 11

DELETE: 17

[edit] Attempt to Summarise Arguments

This is an attempt at an unbiased summary of the many arguments that have been put forward. I have drawn it together in the hope of trying to help build a consensus. I have ignored people whose arguments have been threats of making POINTS themselves. Please improve this list if you can, particularly by adding references. The Land 16:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

DELETE

VIOLATES POLICY

• Violates Not Censored for Minors WP:NOT
• Inherently POV Project, hence not suitable for Wikipedia.
• The proposed indecency tag on pages is inherently POV
• The Project has an implied legal threat to Wikipedia.
• the Project is itself a WP:POINT.
• While the POV is allowable for Wikipedians, it is not allowable in a Wikiproject.

IMPOSSIBLE

• There can be no NPOV standard for decency and hence none can be applied by this Project

IRRELEVANT

• The existing community standards mean obscenity lawas are not breached and this Project is irrelevant
• Were any legal concerns valid the State of Florida would already have taken action upon them.

OTHER

• Divise issues should not be introduced to Wikipedia.

KEEP

PROJECT NECESSARY FOR LEGALITY OF WIKIPEDIA

• Wikipedia risks volating US and State of Florida laws and this project is needed to limit the risk of prosecution.

DELETION VIOLATES POLICY

• VfDing a PRoject page violates policy
• Deletion is POV; Wikipedians with viewpoints should be able to congregte to discuss them and Projects are a legitimate method of doing this.
• Delection constitutes censorship

PROJECT DOES NOT VIOLATE POLICY

• The Project is substantively not different to any other.
• The non-censorship policy is negotiable
• Wikipedia needs clearer policy on this and in the meantime Keep. (Jimbo)

PROJECT IS IRRELEVANT

• The people who initiate it will give up soon
• The existing editing procedure will mean that the Project reflects the balance of views in Wikipedia
• The Project makes it easier to monitor and revert edits by Project members.

[edit] Point of Interest 1

Note the number of personal attacks leveled at the supposed character of the members of the project. I don't feel such is appropriate in this discussion. Agriculture 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Another point of interest: Agriculture, I don't feel it's appropriate to post an aggressive rejoinder under every single vote you disagree with. It's not necessary, or customary, or well-regarded. Bishonen | talk 07:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you feel I have been aggressive and uncivil, please point out how and I will rectify it, I am merely trying to point out that a lot of people don't seem to have perused all the documents in question and don't seem to even understand the clearly stated purpose of the WikiProject. Agriculture 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

He has every right to discuss people's votes. That's what this process is about. I don't think he's been unduly aggressive, even if he's well advised not to bicker with everyone about it. I note that you didn't censure any of the very aggressive commenters that have put the boot into him. Grace Note 03:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Grace, I appreciate the kind words and help, but he's right. I broke the prime rule of Wikipedia, I forgot that only certain types of free speech are welcome here. Thus why none of the others got censured, they were the right kind of free speech, not the wrong kind. Agriculture 04:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Certain users are continually deleting my comments to misrepresent my views on this page. I request they be made to stop. Agriculture 07:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Legitimate and highly pertinent question: What jurisdiction does the State of Florida hold over Wikipedia? Can we get a lawyer to answer this? Fernando Rizo T/C 07:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The wikipedia servers are located in Florida, Jimbo says we must follow Florida Law. Agriculture 07:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel it appropriate for Agriculture to try to engage in debate with every person voting delete. I'll assume good faith but notice how many trolls do just that? Please do not hound those who vote different than you, especially at VfD. Thanks, Redwolf24 07:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I will cut it down then as you request. I feel the users below have not even read the article in question and are rallying to enforce a POV on Wikipedia. I qualify this by pointing out that if one reads the article in question, most of the objections below don't make much sense in context as they object to things not proposed. I will cease editing for tonight but reserve the right to restore any deleted comments. Agriculture 07:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

They're rallying to enforce a POV on wikipedia, well aren't you rallying to enfore YOURS? By the way my intent is by no means to sound hostile and I'm not trying to start a fight. Respectfully, Redwolf24 07:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm simply rallying to try and preserve a page where people can discuss all POV's and try to come to a NPOV decision on decency as Wikipedia Standards, Guidelines, and Florida Law define it. How is that POV? Their POV is that "anyone wanting to discuss standards of decency must be prudes and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia". Agriculture 07:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Mmmhmm, I'm not gonna retort as I'm not interested in an arguement. Now allow me to move this to the bottom as the top should always be the votes. Redwolf24 07:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable Florida Law

847.011 Prohibition of certain acts in connection with obscene, lewd, etc., materials; penalty.--

(1)(a) Any person who knowingly sells, lends, gives away, distributes, transmits, shows, or transmutes, or offers to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, or transmute, or has in his or her possession, custody, or control with intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner, any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose; or who knowingly designs, copies, draws, photographs, poses for, writes, prints, publishes, or in any manner whatsoever manufactures or prepares any such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character; or who knowingly writes, prints, publishes, or utters, or causes to be written, printed, published, or uttered, any advertisement or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, stating, or purporting to state, where, how, of whom, or by what means any, or what purports to be any, such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character can be purchased, obtained, or had; or who in any manner knowingly hires, employs, uses, or permits any person knowingly to do or assist in doing any act or thing mentioned above, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of a violation of this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) The knowing possession by any person of three or more identical or similar materials, matters, articles, or things coming within the provisions of paragraph (a) is prima facie evidence of the violation of said paragraph.

(2) A person who knowingly has in his or her possession, custody, or control any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, film, any sticker, decal, emblem or other device attached to a motor vehicle containing obscene descriptions, photographs, or depictions, any figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose, without intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of violating this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. In any prosecution for such possession, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove the absence of such intent. ...

You left out the part that in order to be obscene the work must be such that: "Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Certainly as a whole Wikipedia has literary merit and aside from the most obviously unencyclopedic stuff, virtually all part of Wikipedia have literary, artistic and/or scientific value. Dragons flight 07:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be part of Florida law, and so doesn't apply. Plus the whole isn't necessarily what should be taken into account, the parts are important too. Agriculture 07:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It is in Section 001 where they define "obscene". Dragons flight 07:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's also the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of obscene. Which makes it apply, any state law to the contrary notwithstanding. FCYTravis 07:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree then, but I think we need to discuss how to determine if the images on Wikipedia have these values which protect them. That is what the project is for, discussion. Agriculture 07:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The images on Wikipedia have these values because they are on Wikipedia - all of the potentially objectionable images that we display are in the context of articles that are meant to inform users of physiological, biological, sociological, or historical facts, and are therefore at least of literary or scientific value. -- BD2412 ^talk 12:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has ruled that , under obscenity review, a work must be considered in its entirety. Individual elements can not count for or against the work. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not a collection of individual elements. --Outlander 22:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow! That's some pretty messed up legislation. I'm glad that I don't live in Florida. --Apyule 07:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You've mentioned several times that that section says you can't distribute such images to minors. For the record, the section that discusses minors, section 012 [4], says "It is unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, rent, or loan for monetary consideration to a minor: (a) Any picture... which depicts nudity or sexual conduct". Since we are neither selling, renting nor loaning for monetary consideration, the section doesn't apply. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 13:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You forgot this part: lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner,...the law applies absolutely.--MONGO 14:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos was talking about Section 12, the one specifically about minors. That does not include the text you have in italics, and furthermore contains the requirement that the material be "harmful to minors", which is defined in Section 1 with the usual "no serious value" etc of the standard obscenity definition. PeteVerdon 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

As a veteran of the Internet indecenty act wars I note that every time a statute such as COPA got to the supreme court it got thrown out, and not on split votes either. The chance of any prosecutor attempting to go after Wikipedia is very small. Let Jimbo and his legal advisers worry about that. The Florida statute is narrower, it is unlikely to apply to Wikipedia, if it did it is unlikely to be upheld as constitutional. --Gorgonzilla 21:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point of interest 2

User:Agriculture has indicated on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion that he/she doesn't think that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that "most bodies" hold this same view, though when asked to point to proof of his claim, he resues to do so. Just something worth pointing out. Zoe 07:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone who reads Slashdot has seen the article, I've had enough stress tonight to bother with being your gopher. I want to help make Wikipedia more encyclopedic, I just pointed out the view of others in reference to a conversation which must be seen in context. Agriculture 07:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What does being your gopher mean? Redwolf24 07:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Doing busy work because someone else has requested you to do so, especially when it will make no difference. Agriculture 07:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Gopher this, gopher that... A person that goes-fer :p --Veratien 12:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion. Useless ideology is worthless, to conform with Florida law it'd be possible to just block all incoming IP traffic from Florida. Lullabye Muse 08:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

An amusing but highly unlikely outcome. :p However, this 'Florida Law' problem could be rectifed by moving the servers to Switzerland... :p --Veratien 12:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point of interest 3

Repeatedly, I see that some suggest moving the servers out of Florida...unfortunately most states have similar legislation regarding these issues. Everyone needs to take a step back and recognize that the people attempting to start this project are not your enemies...we all enjoy the benefits of a free Wikipedia. The purpose of this project was to establish some baseline from which to both adhere to written law and ensure that Wikipedia becomes the most respected source of information on the web. There are some, such as myself that feel that some items in Wikipedia are not encyclopedic and possibly violate applicable laws. We may be right and we may be wrong. Censorship of this project is a double standard.--MONGO 10:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is Montana in the south...maybe compared to Canada. Read some history...more guns+more men=victory, in almost every instance.--MONGO 13:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

A good point. Jimbo Wales, I recall, deleted the Autofelliato image stating that it had no absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Anyway, as said before, this project aims to set a standard for what belongs and what does not. At the same time, it would be nice to keep with Florida Law. P.S. Peace everyone, why is this debate so violent? Banes 10:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What about moving the servers to Tuvalu or Antarctica ? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think moving the servers to Antarctica would be cool, ha ha, get it? cool. Giggle giggle snort;(Please ignore that weak attempt at humor.) Moving along, IByte, you must put your vote above this where the other votes are. Banes 11:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as potentially harmful to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Pornographic images can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis without an organized censorship campaign. Haikupoet 20:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point of Interest 4

Regardless of what the outcome is, I suggest that the result of this vote be treated as Delete, the number of personal attacks leveled above and the extreme bias against discussion exhibited by a number of the voters indicates even if the result is No consensus or Keep, they will see to it that no real discussion can be had, and disrupt any attempts at dialog. Note the user who has "signed up" for the project with the outrageous comment that objectionable content needs to be placed on every page. This kind of disruptive attitude will just result in a lot of useless work by project members at attempting to discuss while countless acts of vandalism are committed by those who disagree with the discussion because it is after all the wrong kind of free speech for Wikipedia. As such save us all a lot work and stress and Speedy Delete. Agriculture 15:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The Project endorses the removal of educational images. Why do you think it's being mocked? -- A Link to the Past 15:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

No, it endorses discussion. We're being mocked because people have no respect for civility in discussion. But then this is Wikipedia, being civil is against Wikipedia Policy. Agriculture 16:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion is not policy, discussion is merely discussion. Agriculture 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, no to you, you do have the right to be an overt bible thumper, you do not have the right make that into policy, removing a policy of censorship, is no more a form of censorship, then removing a persons 'right' to own slaves, is civil rights violation--172.130.8.51 16:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So, like, it wouldn't be a problem for a project to endorse racism on Wikipedia? This needs not any discussion; there is no logical dispute that an image like Autofellatio is not educational. -- A Link to the Past 16:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like your opinion consists of "My POV is NPOV, all others are irrelevant and no logical dispute can be made but mine." Agriculture 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It is. If you had a logical dispute, it would have been presented. You're stumbling over what you say, and your argument is constantly changing to suit it ("well, okay, educational images are protected, but I say they're not educational!"). It just seems you're on a crusade to put your personal opinion on decency into articles. Should we delete Sex, Anal sex and Oral sex? -- A Link to the Past 16:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

As a note, I'm taking advice I've been given and not feeding the troll. Agriculture 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Trolling =/= Trying to uphold Wikipedian policy. And, by the way, stating the fact that your argument lacks logic is not trolling, either. -- A Link to the Past 16:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• ok, how about instead of deletion, we propose soemthing else, a foward/move to Wikipedians_for_Decency so it doesn't look like Wiki is endorcing you, or giving you some kind of special status?--172.130.8.51 16:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Look here, Link to the Past, why is a color photograph of a man sucking his own penis more educational than a simple drawing. Educational? I was never taught how to do that in school! Must have gone to the wrong place...grumble grumble.. Anyway guys, please stop calling each other trolls because that is in itself trolling. Peace Out! Banes 18:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The autofellatio image is not educational. It's pure pornography vandalism. So what? That doesn't mean all the other stuff is too. In case you've forgot, the autofellatio image is not the only thing currently being disputed here. I accept all those articles about big-breasted porn stars but not the autofellatio image. Don't throw out the whole basket of apples because one of them is rotten, or however you say in English. — JIP | Talk 08:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, I dont have an issue with big breasted women if that is actually what they (the women, not the breasts) look like. (Preferbly covered breasts.) But the autofellatio image is one of the major discussion points here. I am totally against "throwing out the whole basket of apples just because one of them is bad" each case would have to be discussed and so on, before being disposed of. Banes 16:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See speedy keep above

Ok, let's actually stop vfding the wikipedia: namespace, as per original policy.

I'd like to close this vfd and warn the nominator, within the next 24 hours. Any objections?

Kim Bruning 14:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean delete the project or close this page? Banes 14:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Kim means that she wants to close the VfD, and yes, Kim, I object. There is no rule that says that you cannot VfD the wikipedia: namespace. See [5]. Sdedeo 14:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, there are a whole bunch of objections up above, labelled as delete votes. I don't recall a policy that says WP: space is somehow out of scope to VfD. -Splash 14:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  Support the closure of this Vfd...nominator even stated that Vfd's in WikiProjects namespaces is unusual....I propose the section regarding tagging of "indecent" articles and images be eliminated along with the template that goes with it.--MONGO 14:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Of course you can VfD a WikiProject or a page in the Wikipedia: namespace. The nominator has broken no rules. This is manifestly not a speedy keep. David | Talk 14:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Kim, this project needs to be punched in the face. Punch! -- A Link to the Past 14:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• I think this may be an important vote which should continue. Note that the nomination policy says "pages in Wikipedia namespace... can be nominated for deletion on VfD, and can be deleted as such. However, this is relatively rare." ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 14:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

*Nod* while it's possible to delete pages in the Wikipedia: project space, it often ends up as a majority vote on the policy, project, or proposal stated. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" , and having VFD as a backdoor like this is probably not a very good idea. I suggest moving this discussion (copying it to the page) to the relevant talk page for the wikiproject itself. Would that be ok? Kim Bruning 14:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel that this would not be okay. As you can see, there is a lot of controversy in this, and many see it as a very legitimate vote (which it is). It seems to me that the vote here is not on whether material is appropriate for children (policy is quite clear on that), but rather the intent of the Project, as it should be. I oppose closing the VfD before it is complete. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:59:24, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

• So you agree that this is indeed a (majority?) vote on policy being conducted on vfd? Hmm, see also here Kim Bruning 15:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• How can a majority of 4 people? be enough to overide a majority of delete votes, numbering in the dozens?? obviously, all the poeple who voted delete thought they could vote, same for the people who voted keep, pulling the plug now simply says, too bad, keep wins on a technicality--172.130.8.51 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No, don't close this. The chance has passed now. If you want to make it clear Wikipedia: nominations shouldn't be allowed on grounds of degenerating into majority votes on policy (which is fine by itself) have that written up as an explicit guideline so we can refer to it. Technically closing it would be fine since it's quite obvious this is not getting any form of consensus that could matter, but you're setting yourself up for accusations of pushing through your opinion on something (in this case, the nonviability of VfD for policy discussions). Best avoid that by either giving this its five days, or convincing Jimbo to do it for you. Anything short of that is going to be unproductive. Well, even more unproductive, I mean. JRM · Talk 15:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think VFD should be where we decide policy, so I certainly wouldn't object to this VFD being closed. I hate this particular project and it's aims but I respect it's right for the community to shoot the idea down, on the project page. -- Joolz 15:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I've changed my mind now, this page appears to be a subtle attack page and certainly not working towards NPOV positions. -- Joolz 23:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think that there is a difference between the examples cited by the people on the VfD talk page and this VfD. Which is, we are not here deleting or attempting to change a Wikipedia policy. If WP:VfD or WP:POINT was up for deletion, of course the nomination would be removed. I suppose this VfD is about policy (suitable for children), but the debate here seems more about enforcement of a policy than changing a policy. I dunno, I just feel that closing it now is going to be counterproductive. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:59:02, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

  I'd suggest that this isn't a VfD about a policy. It's a VfD about the use of a Wikipedia collaboration mechanism (namely, a WikiProject) for a purpose diametrically opposed to a Wikipedia core policy It's like "WikiProject Imposing An Anti-Sex POV". Should we next allow "WikiProject Inserting Systemic Bias" and "WikiProject NPOV-is-Satan"? --FOo 19:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The consensus is that that this is a legit VfD and it should be allowed to run its course. I can't see where you have consensus for speedy keey. Pilatus 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I do not feel the admins have the right to suppress discussion which is clearly ongoing and has a point to it, and I feel that closing this VfD could well be construed as suppressing discussion. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 16:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Nominator has broken no rule, so this can't count as a speedy keep. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object WLD 20:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the deletions are mainly due to the title containing a personal attack. Violetriga also refers to WP:POINT. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 15:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

While I have seen some people voting keep because of it's spot in the Wikipedia space, I remember that a Wikiproject dealing with either some type of Jewish bias (not sure which one) was deleted via thia process. Plus, in my own defense, this and voting keep for the autofellatio image is the only thing I have done in this recent debate over Decency vs Censorship. I have not deleted pages or anything to that relating to this at all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

As of now, the votes stand at Keep 28 votes. Delete 38 votes. I think that is about right, I may have missed a vote. Banes 15:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I counted 49 votes. -- A Link to the Past 20:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, as it stands, this vfd probably violates about half a dozen policies and principles by now. :-/ But I'll leave it stand to keep the peace (for some strange definition of peace involving me not getting lynched :-P). In the mean time, please compare this VFD with the surrounding VFDs, in terms of length, formatting and civility. Does it look like the kind of discussion normally held on VFD? Kim Bruning 09:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The entire process leading up to the Vfd (there was no process) was hostile and without merit. This project was only commencing. Everyone saw the word decency and a few vague sentences and terminology and equated that with censorship. I've never see such a flurry of unnecessary rudeness in my life. There has been more adolescence displayed here than I would have ever expected from this enterprise. Hiding in the safety of their homes and offices, sheltered by distance, the incivility and commentary by a bunch of cowards proves to me that this entire thing is a sham, should be thrown out on it's face and the person and or persons who instigated this Rfd, in violation with the spirit of the entire enterprise deserve to be issued a stern warning.--MONGO 19:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

How long should we wait? A project was created not by soliciting people from the Pornography page or the Sex page, but from various pages on conservative Christian denomenations (not, mind you, Hinduism or Unitarianism), with a discussion of pictures on the Autofellatio page and others like it under the name of decency. The writing is on the wall; how long should we wait for the completely obvious to show itself. And, BTW, how does accusing your opponents of "adolescence" and calling them "cowards" very civil? You and your side have done nothing to keep the conversation civil.--Prosfilaes 01:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Your question how long we should wait pertains to what? I wasn't recruited from some religious article...I'm an atheist anyway. This encyclopedia will never become a household word if all it is is a repository for your standards of encyclopedic worth. I call the behavior of those that have acted adolescent and cowards because that is how they act: repeated attacks upon the person(s) and not the project, "joining" the project with nothing in mind except to disrupt, a violation of WP:POINT, harassment of proponents of this in their userpage, insulting remarks in their user talk...I'm not going to link it all for you. The mature person would just vote..then leave a snide comment if necessary and move on, in an quasi-adult fashion. The writing on the wall...in what manner. If you felt personally offended by my comments and you are not one of the few that have treated this thing as some opportunity to forget that you are dealing with human beings, then I apologize. Bear this in mind, I am more interested in this entire thing being a forum, I was never in favor of tagging articles or forming some kind of moral police. I signed on because I supported both the right of involved parties to a point of assembly and becasue I do support the effort to find some baseline of what is tolerable and what isn't. That you feel there should be no standards means that you fail to understand that this project doesn't belong to you or me...it belongs to the entire world. If the consensus states that this project is to end, so be it. If it continues in it's present form or as a renamed and redefined entity (which I support more than the existing status) then accept it and just turn the other cheek if it offends you, which is the same advice most of those against this project have been telling.--MONGO 02:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

So now were talking about my "standards of encyclopedic worth", which are of course unworthy of Wikipedia. The ever-lovely "That you feel there should be no standards" is quite personal, and wrong, and of course it's because I "fail to understand" what you know to be true. This project doesn't belong to the whole world; it belongs to those who are willing to contribute to it. If you believe that "The mature person would just vote..then leave a snide comment if necessary and move on, in an quasi-adult fashion." then I suggest you stop accusing the other side of being immature, since you yourself are showing that behavior.

Less personally, you may not have been recruited from a religious article, but it's clear the recruiting effort went in that direction. There is no doubt in my mind that given who was being recruited, the tone of the project, and the fact that there was already a list of images that people should go help get deleted, that the project was there as a form of moral police. (Why else solicit on the Baptist talk page?)--Prosfilaes 07:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think you misunderstand. Jim Wales has stated that the Wikipedia organization is not prepared to host disclaimers which would provide proof that images are of those old enough to be even shown in certain images here. Furthermore, though it is highly unlikely, there is always the possiblity for the project to face legal scrutiny irregardless of what may or may not be a definition of "decency" as set forth by Wikipedia. Anyone can sue anyone with little or no reason so long as a lawyer can be found to take the case and so long as a court will hear the arguments. You admit that you do have standards...that the standards in certain areas as set forth by the developers of this project may be more stringent than yours is no reason for there to be assumed that there would commence some sort of a witch hunt. The project was only just beginning, surely your realize that there are a system of checks and balances within Wikipedia that would have ultimately prevented this project from infringing very deeply into any true form of censorship. If you think that this project belongs only to those who contribute to it, then that implies ownership...once you hit "save page"...it belongs to everyone. Needless to say, the fact that certain users harassed and trolled the primary developer of this project is absolute evidence of immaturity. If you feel otherwise, then you are entitled to that opinion.--MONGO 08:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the law. It's "for decency", not legality. There are checks and balances, but they require extra work on the behalf of editors. I am tired of your one-sided observations of maturity, when there have been a number of sockpuppet votes on your side, and the founder of the project accusing all Wikipedians of being dirty, and storming out and asking for a speedy delete on the project.

There have been enough religious groups for decency that brought legal force against things they didn't like, that I think it fair to assume that a group soliciting religious help in the name of decency is worth worrying about. If he solicitied on Sex instead of Baptist for help, it wouldn't be nearly the issue.--Prosfilaes 21:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Exploding Boy 22:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point of Interest 5

I have been looking around and reading and I beleive our group has been infiltrated by outsiders who have attempted to show crazy views in order to discredit us, strawmen arguments. Look at User:Brodo on it he says that MONGO who is here with WfD is just a "neofascist sockpuppet". I would like it to be noted that the moral relativists AKA those for deleting this on this page are resorting to such nasty and uncouth tactics to win their arguments, this is notlike Wikipedia! -DavidsCrusader 19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• perhaps you want to make it more exclusive, maybe you can set up a second council to determine if someone is moral enough to be a part of your group, that should make it look less like you're trying to force a very narrow viewpoint on other people--205.188.116.12 19:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

People going against the 'Don't be a dick' aspect of the Wikipedia:Policy_trifecta shouldn't undermine the reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, nor be used to support the reasoned arguments, again, on either side. It should be an irrelevance. KeithD (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be careful tossing around terms like "moral relativists" on Wikipedia. If you believe that adhering to the NPOV policy is tantamount to moral relativism I'd think about finding somewhere else to spend your time. Oh, and by the way, I think if you knew me you'd probably be pretty quick to accuse me of being a "moral relativist" (ie - someone who doesn't see it necessary to oppose his viewpoints on others). And yet, I'm one of the strongest supporters of keeping the WfD project and not deleting it (yet). I'd hazard that it's exactly the kind of attitude you're presenting here that makes most users hesitant to support WfD. In other words, please tone it down a notch. - Haunti 20:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• I am about 99% sure that the statement on User:Brodo is a joke. My guess is that both of them edited the George W. Bush article, and that Brodo was accused of using MONGO as a sockpuppet. That said (I speak only for myself here, but I'm sure it applies to others), I don't care who's doing the standard-creation. I oppose it anyway. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 20:03:05, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • The user page you cite is a troll that uses sockpuppet accounts. He posted my picture on his page for no reason other than harassment. I use and log in only as MONGO. I never Rfc that user page because he can just get another IP and I don't play games here.--MONGO 00:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of talk pages tagged by this project

A number of articles have been tagged as being "part of" this project, including several which would appear to have no reasonable "decency" issues. The tagging of religious articles is, I think, of particular concern. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Explanation for the confused: a number of these, e.g. the religious pages were indeed tagged by User:Agriculture who is (afaik) the original creator of Wikipedians for Decency. A number of the other pages where such a posting would have a shock effect were tagged by an anonymous user who mimicked the style but signed as "Godfearing Parent". A number of pages were also put in a category "Indecent" by the same user.

I hope this helps explain what's going on. I also posted an explanation on top of Wikipedians for Decency in case anyone ends up there.

My two cents: Agriculture probably didn't help his cause by soliciting help in such a way. People primarily motivated by religion is not what I would want in this wikiproject, at least - just people concerned about some kind of minimalistic "editorial taste and judgment" as Jimbo puts it. On the other hand the anonymous vandal really didn't help his case, that's a pretty disruptive tactic, and there is every indication that it has confused a number of people as to whether he really was (or was acting on behalf of) the Wikipedians for Decency. That's a really lame way to troll for votes. Surely if he had a reasonable argument he would have posted that instead? ObsidianOrder 02:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:Anastasia Christ
• Talk:Anglicanism
• Talk:Anna Malle
• Talk:Aurora Snow
• Talk:Autofellatio
• Talk:Baptist
• Talk:Bible
• Talk:Bisexuality
• Talk:Christian theology
• Talk:Christian
• Talk:Devinn Lane
• George W. Bush [6]
• Talk:Hip hop
• Talk:Homosexuality
• Talk:Islam
• Talk:Jew
• Talk:Lutheranism
• Talk:Methodism
• Talk:Mormon
• Talk:Pandora Peaks
• Talk:Pornography
• Talk:Presbyterianism
• Talk:Protestantism
• Talk:Religious Society of Friends
• Talk:Restoration Movement
• Talk:Roman Catholic Church
• Talk:SaRenna Lee
• Talk:Sex
• Talk:Timea Vagvoelgyi
• Talk:Wicca
• Talk:Zara Whites

• I´m wondering why the article Devinn Lane is listed here ?! Anyone has a problem with the fact that her father is a fundamentalist Christian preacher  ? I think that´s the problem of Mrs.Lane - and she has solved it in her way. :-) Greetings. MutterErde 12:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for compiling this list. Everyone "delete" those tags with extreme prejudice.Gateman1997 23:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Actually his use of certain religious pages is probably a warped way to electioneer this VfD. He's trying to get the "moral majority" to come and support him. I think it's time this "project" got a quick shot to the head and was put down.Gateman1997 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• • You know what? Since you are all leaving manners by the side, I'm going to as well. Up yours, those tags on Christian sites were added well before the VfD was even proposed go check the links and see for yourself, a lot of the other tags were added by users voting to Delete here to make it look like we're trying to censor. Check the damn logs before you mouth off. Agriculture 23:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Now who is being obscene?Gateman1997 00:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Me, because I'm sick and tired of being the damn Wikipunching bag. Agriculture 00:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • I won't speak for the rest of the Wikiverse, but if anything I've said has been taken as a personal attack on you I apologize for that. It was not my intention.Gateman1997 00:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Go read the whole damn page above, we're getting called everything from prudes to Nazi Baby Raping Satanists. Then the same damn users who are voting to delete think it would be funny to use the article inclusion template to vandalize in order to turn EVERYONE against us. Wikipedia isn't a place for discussion, debate, or free speech, it's a just a bunch of kids looking to have fun at other people's expense. Agriculture 00:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
            • It is the supporters who are being called prudes, and the opposers who are being called Nazi Baby Raping Satanists. — JIP | Talk 17:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Some wag put one on Talk:Evolution too. --FOo 02:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

God forbid, notifying religious people that is really underhanded. We can't trust those buggers. Bible thumpers all of them; well, except for hose Wicans, they just like good, wholesome things; damn them too. Extreme prejudice in deleting those notifications, YES!!! Keep the moral people ignorant so we can delete this terrible, wicked page that would allow people to discuss standards. GIVE ME A BREAK!!! I have never read so much crap in all my life. A man who can suck himself is educational??? Educational for who? Why is it so sacrosacnt that it can not even be discussed! You people amaze me. Everyone is free to discuss anything as long as it agrees with me. Boy, do I love liberal elites and mental midgets; they make me so proud to be human. Storm Rider 02:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speaking of Elites, so far I have read user pages and I have identified at least FOUR users on here who are involved in the liberal arts academic world, and surprise surprise they voted to DELETE. Also someone deleted the obscenity tag off of the Chelsea Charms article WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION. -DavidsCrusader 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Just thought I'd point out that no one needs your permission to do anything on Wikipedia.Gateman1997 02:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Portraying this as the poor innocent religious folk against the evil liberal arts world just makes it look all the more firmly that it's POV. Try inclusionist tactics, not exclusionary tactics. And no one has to get your permission to do anything. Wikipedia asks editors to be bold, not ask permission from the editors that preceeded you.--Prosfilaes 03:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've got a book that lists books that were considered indecent by 16th century England. The authors tend to lose their heads or at least their ears or freedom. To bring the religous people together on the presumption that they are the moral people to pass judgement on the rest of us has been the death of many, many people, and the silence of many others. But, no, we should trust them implicitly. It's nice to see that the side that is whining the personal attacks feels so free to dish them out.--Prosfilaes 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Is the tagging of religious articles a sick joke or trolling? Because otherwise we're becoming a fundamentalist Christian controlled medium, forbidding any viewpoints that conflict with their idea of the world. That's no better than the Taliban - or actually worse, since AFAIK the Taliban never claimed to fight for freedom and democracy. Last time I checked, this whole "Wikipedians for Decency" business was to protect Wikipedia from violating Florida law by distributing indecent material such as pornography. If religious views conflicting with conservative Christianity are indecent or pornographic, we might just as well resurrect the Spanish Inquisition. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• As the person who removed the templates and set him off, I was removing them because the template was going to be deleted soon. Nothing malious, nor in line with any liberal conspiracy. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 16:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I hate Wikipedia, it's just like Slashdot. No one reads the ****ing comments. Why would I care about a liberal conspiracy or believe one exists? I vote democratic. Agriculture 17:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • • "Boy, do I love liberal elites and mental midgets; they make me so proud to be human. Storm Rider 02:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"
      • "Speaking of Elites, so far I have read user pages and I have identified at least FOUR users on here who are involved in the liberal arts academic world, and surprise surprise they voted to DELETE. Also someone deleted the obscenity tag off of the Chelsea Charms article WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION. -DavidsCrusader "
    • It was these comments I was refering to. Nothing to do with you, Agriculture. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There was no reason to delete the templates! It was the only way that I was made aware of this whole issue. The fact that you would delete an edit so that others would not be aware of it is pure, simple censorship. Your objective was keep people ignorant so that you who know better can handle the issue as you see fit. I have reverted you and Zoe twice and you continue to delete the edit. Nothing malicious??? Given the kind of utter nonsense in this discussion you amaze even some of the greatest of BS'ers. If you are not "man" enough to call it for what it is, malicious censorship, at least save us from your weak justifications. Storm Rider 17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep people ignorant?!? If you want to inform people of your project, find those who edit articles who might be interested, and put something on their talk page. The template you want caused the people who edited those articles to be confused ([7] see the bottom), wondering how the articles contained pornography. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes, ignorant as in unaware or uninformed. I learned of this whole dispute because it was listed on a page of interest to me. Without it having been listed I might have been completely unaware and therefore unable to participate in a subject of value to WIKI. Your efforts to delete every entry is an effort to keep people in the dark, as in unaware, or ignorant of this issue. To hide behind, "Well, someone could be confused" as an excuse is laughable. Why are you duplicitous, just state the facts; you are more interested in your objectives being achieved than the community being able to contribute. No big, but we at least know your stripes. Storm Rider 21:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• An anon inserted the template onto the Mariah Carey article, which is how I was originally brought to the attention of this WikiProject. Apparently, "we're not here to help sell records for her, so she doesn't need to go all hoochy coochy on us". Extraordinary Machine 18:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point of interest 6

These supposedly neutral people are now branching into attacking other non-Christian religions. Crazy Christians attack Wicca. Gateman1997 22:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a group of users with the intention of promoting their particular viewpoint on Wikipedia. Not sharing it is not a valid reason to vote 'Delete'. Vacuum c 23:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um point of contention. Users aren't supposed to HAVE a viewpoint. Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. Gateman1997 23:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • User's can have opinions, but mainly NPOV said that we cannot push our viewpoints on everyone who contributes here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Then the question would become are those tags that they're putting out there a PUSH of a POV. I consider them as such. Don't know what everyone else thinks on the topic.Gateman1997 00:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Users are allowed to have viewpoints, but articles aren't. I fully support deleting the template - because this wikiProject exists to promote a PoV, plastering the tags blindly on articles violates the articles' NPoV. Vacuum c 20:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'll note no one from the project has been doing it, if you trace them back I think you'll find the people here who have voted delete and posted personal attacks are behind the tagging, trying to force a delete. Agriculture 23:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• If that's true it's deplorable but it still doesn't change the fact this is a POV project or that you have tagged articles yourself on Christian, Islam, and Jewish pages trying to drum up support for your cause. Gateman1997 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when do Christians Jews and Muslims share views on Decency? We were trying to get people involved in the discussion, not trying to force a POV. When will you people sit down and get it through your damn heads, WIKIPROJECTS DON'T HAVE EXCLUSIVE MEMBERSHIPS. The POV of the project would in the end be simply the POV of Wikipedia because ANYONE CAN JOIN. Now go visit my user page, there is a message there for you. Yes, I know it hurts my arguments, but I don't care anymore, you have all destroyed my faith in the NPOV of Wikipedia. You all have an agenda, and you push it using dirty dirty tactics. Agriculture 00:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims share many views on decency. The specific details may vary, but they share a common bias against nudity and towards adult, heterosexual relationships between married people only. And the simple fact you chased after religious people, and didn't post a link on the pornography talk page is a sign. --Prosfilaes 02:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this a project?

I mentioned this in my vote but it somewhat got lost. I don't see why this is a Wikiproject. Accoring to Wikipedia:WikiProject, wikiprojects are designed to co-ordinate the efforts of several users, and to allow a group of conceptually related pages to have similar structures and appearance. This page/project is nothing to do with that. Shouldn't we be encouraging the participants to create a concensus page, or a policy for wikipedians all to vote on? Sabine's Sunbird 00:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If this was changed into a policy proposal page or such maybe people might reconsider their delete votes. -- Joolz 00:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This page was put up for deletion almost as soon as it started. Nevertheless, here was 1 of the 2 primary proposed "projects":

Suggest constructive ways to modify the statement of policy

Current policies:

• Wikipedia is not censored
• Wikipedia:Image_use_policy
• Wikipedia:Profanity
• Undefined "no nudity policy" but that does not mean it must be G-rated
  • The current undefined "no nudity policy" is more on the lines of "no pornography" policy, the difference being that nudity could be found in an art museum, pornography could not.

--Noitall 01:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the definition of "pornography" is hardly clear, and you clearly can find things that most people would call "pornography" in modern art museums. --Fastfission 01:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Wales weighs in on the legal issues

I copied this from the mailing list. If there is a problem with copying text from the mailing list, please remove it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Fastfission wrote:

>> If images which would very likely count as
>> "obscene" under that particular state law (Florida?) were able to be
>> X-ed out (that is, their presence would be visible, even though their
>> content would not be) by default, and could be "enabled" by people who
>> swore that they were not minors (or didn't live in the U.S.), wouldn't
>> that solve a few problems at once? Those who are worried about seeing
>> a nipple wouldn't by default, while those who wanted to see them could
>> easily do so, and instead of doing it under the guise of someone's
>> projected "decency", we were doing it simply to comply with U.S. law
>> (blame U.S. prudery on this all you want, but I'm betting laws of a
>> similar sort, though with different boundaries set, exist in most
>> countries).

I'm sorry but I think it bears repeating firmly and often that a nipple
showing is in absolutely no way illegal in the United States. We could
show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24
hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States.

It is pretty difficult to come up with something which is legally
"obscene" by US standards in the context of Wikipedia. And our own
internal processes seem so far quite adequate to keep us very far from that.

One thing I like to emphasize in this context is that sound editorial
judgment is not the same thing as censorship. We don't show full-blown
mainstream pornography on the front page of wikipedia as a matter of
editorial taste and judgment, not out of concern with censorship law.

>> An
>> additional thought which occurred to me is that I'm fairly sure a
>> federal law was passed not too long ago which requires age
>> verification information for nude models to be hosted by the website
>> hosting their pictures (proof that they are at least 18 years old). If
>> that's the case, that's another unpleasant legal/technical thing to
>> think about.

I do think that this law may have some applicability, but it does *not*
apply to models who are merely nude. It applies, and I would have to
look it up again to get the exact language, to models engaging in
specific explicit activity -- I don't think we have any images of this,
but this law could be used to argue that we can't host photographs on
autofellatio unless I'm willing to keep documentation on file from
the models (and I'm not). But this does not apply to drawings, which is
what we have there now, for better or worse.
--Jimbo

(The email in question is here, and a second one on the same thread here.)

[edit] Post Jimbo Discussion

• Well that pretty much settles the legal issues then. Jimbo and Wikipedia have nothing to fear from the US or Florida Governments over anything except MAYBE the autofellatio image.Gateman1997 00:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • • ...and that only because of the lack of desire to keep age records on the fellow, not because of the image content specifically. --Fastfission 01:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering his work history, I'd be more likely to trust him on this particular legal issue than the rest of us schmucks. - Haunti 00:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it true he was involved with the porn industry?Gateman1997 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • See Bomis and Jimmy Wales. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-18 T 01:13:49 Z
• "sound editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship" - sound editorial judgment is exactly what the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency was meant to be in the first place. As far as I know, not a single Admin or anyone with any "powers" was involved in its creation. It was meant to use the powers of persuasion that "Image:autofellatio 2.jpg", which I put up for deletion, to convince others that it did not meet a proper standard for Wiki. There was no "legalities" or "enforcement" of anything we did, only "sound editorial judgment." --Noitall 01:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Jimbo wasn't saying yea or nay to this particular project, he was commenting specifically on whether the legal issues brought up by its members were applicable. In the context of the larger discussion, he was addressing the larger issue of image filtering which has been talked about on the mailing list for some time now. --Fastfission 01:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Your interpretation is entirely wrong. He specifically stated his comment was not about the legal end. I quoted part of it, here is the entire part:

One thing I like to emphasize in this context is that sound editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship. We don't show full-blown mainstream pornography on the front page of wikipedia as a matter of editorial taste and judgment, not out of concern with censorship law.

--Noitall 01:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Maybe if you read the entire e-mail in context -- of which only a portion is reproduced here -- you'd have a better sense of it. Or you can get huffy and tell me that I don't know the context of the e-mail thread I was a participant in, whatever suits you. --Fastfission 11:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Plus, it's like when clowns all pile into a car. Then at least you know where they all are. Hamster Sandwich 01:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Now, now. I'm not convinced everyone involved with this project had some censorship agenda in mind. Certainly some users did, but not all. Gateman1997 01:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is quite settled now that due to the legal ramifications present in anti-pornography laws and Wikipedia that this Project must be kept open. I propose than an administrator close this at once as a victory for Keep and have the nominator and the rude people who made Agriculture leave banned for 24 hours. -DavidsCrusader 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What? Did you read what's posted directly above? The point was that the law protects Wikipedia in pretty much every current circumstance, with the possible exception of the autofellatio image. I doubt we need a whole project to stop one image from being posted. I don't want Agriculture to leave either, but your comment doesn't really make much sense. - Haunti 01:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Is this merely a question of what is legal?? Does sound editorial judgment simply mean conforming to the law??Amerindianarts 01:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Jimbo's point is that it's all basically legal, so sound editorial judgment is just that, judgment as an editor about what is best for the encyclopedia, not judgement as a lawyer. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 08:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• IMV I can't see how after this there can be any desire for a keep on the basis of needing to keep to applicable laws. The issue is solely about what Wikipedia wants to do, not what it might be required to. The Land 12:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:DavidsCrusader

I would like to note that looking at User:DavidsCrusader, the user appears to be a sockpuppet created by Wikipedians who disagree with WfD to discredit it's members by providing a strawman to argue against. Another example of the dirty dirty tactics used by Wikipedians. Agriculture 02:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Agriculture, Im sorry if I have hurt the movement in any way, it wasnt my intention. I am not here to "discredit" us, I was sent here by Noitall. He left a message on [[8]] that your movement shared my beliefs and I should join, so I did, at that same time it was VfD'ed and I decided this was one American that was NOT going to take it, so I decided to fight it. I realize I was not as civil as I should be, I will try to be more civil and hopefully try later on the pornography deletion case -DavidsCrusader 03:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a movement TROLL, it's an attempt at discussion. Noitall never did as you claimed, now quit it or someone is gonna get really pissed. Agriculture 03:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you mean he never did that?:

"# Keep The issue of deletion of a page is notability and she is notable. The picture is an appropriate version of her as a person, not in any sex act. Many of us do believe that Wiki needs standards, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, but there is nothing here to cause the deletion of anything on this page. One more important point: nothing in this article or picture was done specifically to get on Wiki--she did it on her own to promote herself and her career. --Noitall 13:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)" thats directly from the page -DavidsCrusader 04:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • And it doesn't say a damn thing which you claimed, quite the opposite in fact. And thats it I'm stopping with the troll feeding. Anyone want to join me in a rousing round of RfC? Agriculture 04:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • I think Agriculture is more likely the troll. At the very least, your attitude to someone who you think might be a troll is uncalled for. Politeness to other editors is more important at Wikipedia then a call for decency.--Prosfilaes 04:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Agriculture, I'll second the RfC. Actually, on second thoughts, perhaps a speedy sockpuppetban through the administrators' noticeboard? RfC would seem like too much credit for this troll. Prosfilades, you have to track DavidsCrusader's entire wiki-career to get a sense for exactly how disruptive he has been, by pretending to a point of view in order to discredit it. He got a little to exuberant at some points which gave the game away, but perhaps not to a casual observer. That he is a sockpuppet is quite clear, the only question is whose? ObsidianOrder 05:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Right. Or he could possibly just be a new Wikipedian; he did appear before this VfD started. This sounds like paranoia instead of a real, valid complain.--Prosfilaes 03:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• This user is a sockpuppet for Stamford spiney (talk • contribs). Looking at the VfD for Knees Up Mother Earth (the logged VfD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Knees Up Mother Earth), one will note that the nomination was made by DavidsCrusader, but the user stating "I was too hasty." is Stamford spiney. I urge all voters to DISREGARD anything by this sockpuppet. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:11:49, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Note that SS said to VFD, DC nominated, SS retracted. I think DC is an eminently suspicious user, and I feel his encylopedic standards have as much weight as the electrons they're written on, but I think you're seizing on invalid evidence there. Shimgray 03:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • True, could be. I do find it odd that his first edit (and in fact, 29/33 of his edits) are in regards to this Project... -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:20:28, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

• Agriculture is right, this is a sockpuppet/troll. DavidsCrusader first appeared yesterday (02:49, 16 August 2005) about 9 hours before this VfD was posted, and immediately started a number of VfD's on articles about women with large breasts [9]. Since then he's done nothing but hang around at this page and actively troll with comments such as "Also someone deleted the obscenity tag off of the Chelsea Charms article WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION.". LOL. Begone, troll. ObsidianOrder 03:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think he is as Agriculture contends someone placed here to discredit his Wikiproject, but rather just a plain old troll.Gateman1997 03:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • how can you be sure, from what I've observered, people of the liberal persuasion are capable of almost anything--64.12.116.7 03:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually if anything this user seems to be of the highly conservative persuasion. But let's not have this degenerate into a political spectrum debate please.Gateman1997 03:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe not. The timing is too precise though. ObsidianOrder 03:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • probable sock of: User:SchmuckyTheCat--MONGO 04:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I would just like to admit that I am in fact SchmuckyTheCat, I was put up to this by FCYTravis, A Link to the Past, and Raul654. They wanted me to be a Strawman Sockpuppet on the Big-breasted models pages, because they wished to have them kept, then when they saw this VfD go up, they sent me here. They will deny this vehemently, trust me, I know, but it was then. I guess I will leave this page now. -DavidsCrusader 04:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is he really a sockpuppet? I figured him for a clueless newbie as someone else called him. --Noitall 04:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I said probable. It is doubtful that FCYTravis, A Link to the Past and Raul654 would request the assistance of someone who is mainly editing opposite to their viewpoints here. If it is true and DavidsCrusader would like to provide proof, then arbitration will commence...trust me on that one.--MONGO 05:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

They werent the only ones, obviously they are controlled by others higher than them, but theyre the ones who handed me the orders to blackball WfD and to strawman the big-breast women. What proof? Their is no proof, they see to that, trust me. This isnt the first time this happens either, other users and pages have been forced off or deleted off through these tactics before and trust me its always the same people in command. Their are others out there who know what I am talking about. Agriculture is a good guy, his Project just had to be deleted because it didnt jive with the committees policies and if they could get a conservative moral absolutist like him OFF the board, the better in their eyes. Im glad the truths out now, I urge everyone to vote KEEP that voted delete, this was all a sham vote. -DavidsCrusader 07:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete the TROLL Agriculture 07:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What a load of crap. Zoe 08:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's true, but Raul and FCY are my minions. I also shot JR, was the second gunman on the grassy noll, created the Love Bug virus, invented the Edsel, crashed the Hindenburg, convinced them to replace Jerry Orbach with Dannis Farina in Law & Order, and even went as far as convincing them to not explain the disappearance of Jerry.

I am also a test tube baby, formed with the DNA of Hitler, Bin Laden and John Wilkes Booth. Shocking, isn't it? -- A Link to the Past 18:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

No need to worry about him now, I blocked him for the sockpuppetry, his personal attacks on users and constant trolling and vandalism. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point of interest 7

Anon IP 172.167.11.125 (talk • contribs) and 172.173.85.232 (talk • contribs) are the same person....voted Delete twice...logged in and edit history shows no other edits except here...probable sockpuppet uses would hardly surprise me based on the rest of the adolescent behavior and commentary shown by numerous voters here.--MONGO 03:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Terrible the kind of dirty tricks, some people will try and pull--LegalBreifs 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Once the VFD is declared closed by the admins, they will go through and make sure that each vote is legit. Some annons and new people voted delete, some voted keep. So the final tally on both sides will be reduced, but I am not sure by how much. However, I will not close the VFD myself and it will be closed by an uninvolved admin. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

An effort to speedy keep failed and this doesn't qualify for speedy delete, so there will be a need for a calculator in another 4 days.--MONGO 03:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

One of these vermin seems to have vandalized my user pages a few times, do you think you could just block them all? the 172s seem like nothing but trolling, bias insertion, and vandalism, they wouldn'tbe missed--I-2-d2 04:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Some wanted to speedy keep it because it was in the Wikipedia name space. I talked to the person who wanted to close it early on IRC and explained to him on why I believe the vote should still continue. As time passes, while some users still attack one another, some get down to business and figures out what is going on. Once we did find out what is going on and what is going to happen next. Usually, VFD's last for five days, and it is close to approaching the end of it's first 24 hours on here. But I know the dicussion will be done longer, and we will have a link to this and other pages for future referencing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No kidding. Personally, I think the nomination of this Project for Vfd was hostile. I never saw one comment or the like to any of those who commenced this project. I think it is a double standard to try to censor what many people here regard as a project to censor Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about trying to insult people with ridiculous POV. Many claim no standards should exist...that this should be a repository for whatever they deem as encyclopedic. I have stated that standards are imposed by us all...without some level or baseline of what is encyclopedic we end up with nothing more than a bunch of off the wall images and articles of NO encyclopedic merit. Jim Wales stated that he was not interested in providing sanctuary for records proving the ages of some of the people that have allowed their obscene images to be uploaded here...there is not a porn company, adult magazine or similar interest within the confines of the U.S. that doesn't require some form of valid proof that these people are of age. The implications of attempting to formulate the preeminent web based encyclopedia are jeopardized by those that fail to understand that all freedoms come at a cost.--MONGO 04:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap MONGO, well said. Are you a professional speaker? Agriculture 04:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself, a round of applause for the man--LegalBreifs 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to MONGO. I, and I'm sure others with me think the creation of the project itself was a hostile act. Stopping a group of censors isn't censorship, it's good sense. And _precisely_ beause Wikipedia is not about trying to insult people with ridiculous POV the group has no right to exist. Why is it so hard for the likes of you to realize there is no "higer truth" or "higher morals". It's all subjective and POV. If the Wikipedia is on occasion cluttered with obscene images, so be it. Wiki is NOT:Paper and NOT:Safe for minors. There's a lot of articles without encyclopedia merit that people fight to keep. For instance, I feel the inclusion of all schools great or small with or without merit is turning this into a webdirectory. Let's face it, this whole Wikipedia thing is turning into something else then envisioned years ago. And that's how it should be, as long as the golden rule of consensus is followed. The group is created exressively to circumvent the consensus rule, so you're trying to play unfair. The implications of accepting that "all freedoms come at a cost" are staggering. If you want to be a cynica prude, that's fine as long as you keep out of my face about it. Me, I'm willing to fight for anything that threatens my freedom to express myself or others to express themselves as they see fit, as long as it also protects the values and expression of others. And that's where this project was turning sour.--Lomedae 10:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your apparently a new user so I'm not going to bite you. Review WP:NOT. I am not a cynical prude. I am only interested in ensuring that Wikipedia is THE reference point of encyclopedic value and people can all say, gee, I'm not sure of that, let me get on the web and check Wikipedia.--MONGO 10:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am a relative new user, what has that got to do anything? I have been active on the internet for more then 20-odd years now so please dont talk down to me, the period of time someone is active on Wikipedia says _nothing_ about their level of sophisticaion in these matters. I understand the point you're trying to make all too well, I just vehemently dissagree with you. I note you are not responding to any of the points I've made. Feel free to bite me if you feel like it. --Lomedae 10:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

You are new to Wikpedia. It wasn't intended as an insult. I did respond to your points. The moment you hit the "save page" button, your contribution belongs to everyone, not just you. I don't understand what your intent is. Are you interested in building the most respected web based encyclopedia on the web? If so, then you must surely acknowledge that when you regstered your username you accepted some level of standards. That you feel that school listings are unimportant, perhaps the person creating the article did. I'll abide by whatever the consensus comes to in this Rfd. I personally wish to rename and possible move this project into userify and revamp the focus. I did not create this project but was invited here. I agree with SOME of the goals of the project...why do you feel so threatened...I simply don't get it.--MONGO 10:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Stopping a group of censors isn't censorship, it's good sense." -- That you can't see the difference between stoping a so-called group of censors from performing censorship and censoring a group from having a place to air their views is truly frightening - I have a hard time not not airing my mind more forcefully. Like I said several months ago, although I usually disagree with User:Tony Sidaway, he has my respect because of I find his views to be usually consistent and well-thought out (though I, of course, think my opposing views are equally well thought out ;). Trödel|talk 11:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You make your points well. My problem is that I can't make a few of the arguments I want to because they probably would be misconstrued. You say they're so-called censonsors, I say they're censors. This goes beyond semantics but bores down way deeper into every opponent and proponent's personal value and belief system. You'll find that I'm a very reasonable man on almost all discussion topics bar this one. I am so incredibly fed up with people telling me what is right or proper for people be able to see. Whether it's the insane discussion about GTA or the current destruction of the secularity of the UsA I find the current atmosphere in the Western world becoming oppresive to free-thinkers. And I can't get over myself that sensible people like you and Mongo defend this project. --Lomedae 11:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if we label them censors or not - there will be disagreement about that - thus the "so-called" label I used. But regardless - if we work to stop the discussion of a group of censor's, then we are the censors. If we monitor their actions and plans and they try to censor but we prevent it and are successful - then that is the wikiway. When we make value judgments based on the perceived value and belief system rather than on the actions they take then we are making a mistake. I don't care if what a person believes - if he treats me as a friend then I am his friend. In other words, lets see their edits - if they do as suspected they will not succeed and the project will lose steam. Trödel|talk 23:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point of interest 8

Seriously, what the hell. Lets just Speedy Delete this damn thing and get it the hell over with. Some of us want to just move on finish some stuff and then scram from this Vandalpedia for good. We all know the outcome already, it's going to either be: Delete or No consensus in which case the trolls and vandals above will just antagonize the WikiProject till it dies a horrible painful death. The only good outcome is if it just gets Speedy Deleted so none of us waste any more of our damn time on this shit. Agriculture 04:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you and the other creators and members of the project also wish to be speedy deleted, then I will go along with it. Until then, we just stay calm. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion, consider moving this to your user pages, or to Wikipedia:Wikipedians for Decency, regardless of the outcome of this vote. This will sidestep many of the objections given ("wikiproject sounds too official") but will be functionally exactly the same. Also pages in the user namespace are almost immune from vfd on the basis of supposed pov (as a certain recent vote demonstrated); and there are a number of very pov pages at Wikipedia:Wikipedians for X. Seems like a way to avoid a big headache. ObsidianOrder 05:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

But, from what Agriculture said on my talk page, he might leave Wikipedia all together. Of course, if the project is moved to another location, I have no problems with that at all, though I have no clue who will host it then. However, I do wish to point out that there was a user page put up for deletion before for promoting illegal activies and one was put up just recently that contains that user's blacklist of other users. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No might's about it, I don't want this crap on my user page, I'm gone for good after a week. Agriculture 06:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, some good news. Lord Bob 08:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's really uncalled for. Agriculture has tried to keep this thing sane. - Haunti 11:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Since he started this mess to begin with, that statement is at odds with reality. --Calton | Talk 12:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have neither time nor patience with people who spend great big wads of not-paper lamenting about how persecuted they are and how much Wikipedia really means "Kill All Unbelieverspedia" and the whining and complaining that he wasn't getting his way and that everybody didn't agree with him all the time. I have nothing against defending your viewpoint and your Wikiproject like he did at the beginning (some of his points don't exactly hold up to scrutiny but at least bear examination and seem to be made in good faith), but Agriculture took it out of hand in a hurry. Lord Bob 18:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Knee-jerk. Read the history. Yes I've switched my opinion because it isn't worth dealing with. Vandalpedia would rather knee-jerk than examine the issue. Out of hand? Maybe, want to know why? Because the trolls have finally pushed me over the edge and I don't give a damn anymore. Agriculture 18:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been reading, and I've stated my opinion, just like you've stated yours (frequently, I might add). But this whole "generalizations about 'Vandalpedia'" thing is pretty well what I was talking about, although it's good to see that you recognize the out-of-handness. Or at least give it a maybe. Lord Bob 19:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who legislates Decency?

Maybe we should put "Ratings" and "Parental Advisory" labels all over Wikipedia. Then the "offensive members of society" can tag their works with advertisements as they do in every record and porn shop in America.

DELETE ChrisBradley 04:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• or, maybe we could just ban all the trolls--I-2-d2 04:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We try to ban all of the trolls. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why attack images?

Considering the informative texts Wikipedia has on sexuality, it is hypocritical to attack images. Since Wikipedia has sexual content, people who are offended by a perfectly natural nude body should probably not be reading wikipedia anyway. I believe this club has been formed by people with an American christian right agenda, but then again, those people are more tolerant to violence in films than to a woman's nipple.--Wiglaf 15:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• There are places on Wikipedia where sexual content is certainly justified; right now this project seems to be focusing on those places. Even there, this project has scope to operate in keeping such images tasteful and appropriate. However there are also pages where sexual content exists primarily to add needless and misleading sexual flavor and is not necessarily encyclopedic. I'm not sure a Wikiproject is needed to police this but it's a valid cause. There's also the fact that reasonable advocacy for a change in policy on censoring for minors has a place, again perhaps a project is not needed for this however. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:51, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians for Indecency

Anyone want to help start Wikipedians for indecency? If it is OK to establish a campaign group for decency the NPOV requires that an indecency campaign be allowed. I am completely serious here. There are much worse things going on in the world than porn by a long way. And many of the people who are committing those attrocities are people like Bin Laden and the Iranian Mullahs and Christian and Jewish prelates who cloak their hatred and their bigotries in the dress of religion. --Gorgonzilla 00:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm here to create an encyclopedia with such policies as NPOV and not censored for minors in mind. I'm not here for defining (in)decency. Many of the keep votes are opposed to deleting the project outright, but wouldn't mind seeing it fail on it's own merits. I think a "WikiProject" pushing indecency is just as bad as a "WikiProject" pushing decency. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-20 T 03:09:21 Z

A WikiProject for indecency would be a bad idea. Just because Wikipedia is not censored for minors doesn't mean we have to have adult material everywhere. — JIP | Talk 06:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That is not what the group would campaign for, it would campaign to ensure that explicit pictures are used whenever appropriate in the context. For example many of the pictures of sex acts are depicted by line drawings which fail to depict the genitalia, this is highly unsatisfactory. A school kid living in Saudi Arabia, Alabama or Iran is not going to get the information they need from a tastefully censored line drawing. --Gorgonzilla 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I must have misunderstood you. But I still oppose the idea of a Wikipedians for Indecency project just as much as this Wikipedians for Decency project. Explicit images should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. And I'm quite sure even people in Saudi Arabia, Alabama or Iran would understand those line drawings. — JIP | Talk 16:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well if it is ok to start one project then it is ok to start the other. Oh and a group of Wikipedians for Bush and then Wikipedians against Bush which will merge with Wikipedians for Indecency to form Wikipedians for Tush.--Gorgonzilla 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been against this Wikipedians for Decency project right from the start. So therefore your logic escapes me. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers for this project

Finally, a project I can support. There is never a good reason to display realistic sex-related materials for minors to see. In Encyclopedia Britanica, there are no phographs of real life genitals, especially of an erect penis. Even in high school health & college medical classes, the instructors are legally not allowed to show photographs of erections and other sexual acts to their students. Wikipedia should strive to inform following the legacy encyclopedias and school standards and not become another just another porn site with some text. Order C 05:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC) (Order C's edit count before writing this comment: 0)

Really? Do you have any evidence that college medical classes are legally not allowed to show pictures of erections? I would hope that a doctor treating priapism would at some point in his education have seen a picture of an erect penis. Frankly, an erect penis is not an act, nor is it sexual (males frequentally wake up with an erection). In any case, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If you want a encyclopedia to school standards, you're going to need to find another one, as this one fundamentally doesn't aim there. And really, honestly, Wikipedia is not going to become just another porn site. 99% of the pages are porn-free, and are going to stay that way, whether or not the Doggy style page has a video showing how it's done and whether or not we delete the pictures of an erect penis from the Erection page.--Prosfilaes 06:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, hello, there are more 'graphic' images in a 9th grade biology text book, then the content in question here--64.12.116.7 17:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You are completely wrong, Order C. Speaking as someone who has gone through medical school at a public university, I can assure you that we saw a picture of erect penises. In fact, the anatomy illustrations of Frank Netter are notorious for their sexuality (at least with regards to the female subjects.) And Netter was the anatomy text we used. Moreover, I remember one really really old anatomy professor teaching us a mnemonic for remembering whether the sympathetic or parasympathetic system controlled tumenescence (getting erect) or detumenescence: Point and Shoot.

Don't even get me started on what happened in anatomy when we did the GU system. You've never heard so many Beavis and Butthead imitations in your life. Heh heh heh... he said penis. Heh heh heh. -NickGorton 17:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Graphical content problem

I personaly do not care either way. I am neither excited or disgusted by images of sexual content. I have seen a good share of violence so pictures of "damaged" corpses do not cause me blood presure problems either. Ill be redesigning the template. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC) For parties who cant bear seeing such images an earlier project I proposed (which wasnt rejected nor accepted) can be useful. -Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC) I believe this image would be censored in any public TV viewing at even the most liberal places. But I think thats wrong. You should not hide "facts", however I also believe we should respect peoples right to read about information without being "disturbed" by the images. -Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic Fool List

• Keep. -- This will save us all work, by listing foolish, narrow-minded editors all in one place. Deleting the page will not prevent the fools from organizing. Better we should just take note of self-identified members and revert them on sight. — Xiong熊talk* 09:26, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
  • We certainly do get a diversity of opinions around here. Everyking 09:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That we do, Everyking, that we do. Can this vote be added to the "keep" list then? Banes 12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy

Take a look at the ser page of self appointed decency monitor User:Agriculture. More indecency and obscene language there than I have seen on any other user page. --Gorgonzilla 21:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Some moron has been giving Wikipedia a fairly lousy name by vandalizing the user page...in its native form, while I'm not going to comment on the quality of the words, they don't seem to be indecent or obscene ones. Lord Bob 21:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Is he allowed to say "screw it" on Wikipedia? Christiaan 22:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Go through the history, several of the 7 words... --Gorgonzilla 22:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Although I'm still not going to get my knickers in a knot over it, it is pretty funny now that I actually, you know, do the research... Lord Bob 22:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personally attacking User:Agriculture. This VfD does not revolve around him but rather the issue at hand. He has even backed out of the project by his own admission. Thank you.Gateman1997 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Wikipedians against censorship WikiProject

I have created a new WikiProject to fight against unneccessary censorship of Wikipedia. All Wikipedians concerned about ongoing efforts to censor Wikipidia are welcome to join and contribute. This is a serious project, not a parody or effort to make a point. Kaldari 21:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To everyone: please do not proliferate discussions. Take any comments on this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. JRM · Talk 21:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.