Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Notice board archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 17 August 2006

Do members know about the attempt by a former employee of Wired Magazine to censor information regarding the company's use of the Zippies to pump the magazine's hotwired news service? The whole thing seems to have turned into a revert edit war, with this person Ethnopunk 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any censorship here, this looks like someone with an obsession for an old Wired story in a revert war with someone equally set in their way. An admin will probably pick this up. Lomedae talk 09:30, August 19, 2006 (UTC)

It's not merely an "Old Wired Story", it's about marketing and the history of online media. Wired used the Zippies to market a host of online services, including various bots. The reason the story is being censored, is that nobody got paid even though this went past fairness to outright abuse of a public movement of techno-kids touted by New Times and other papersEthnopunk 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 2 August 2006

A user [1] is conducting a survey on his talkpage to "understand if Koenraad Elst could be cited as a valid non biased source for the 2002 Gujarat violence, Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi articles. .... Can we include Koenraad Elst's comments as a valid NPOV factual/news source? Please highlight with your comments on why we should and why we should not? Concise and responding to these questions.I will only allow the first para of your responses here." [2]

I see this as a badly veiled attempt at censorship. By censoring Koenraad Elst from the Ayodhya related articles, one of the most important authorities on the Hindu side of the Ayodhya debate would be effectively silenced. The whole conducting of such a "survey" on wikipedia is just a replaying of the old Galileo affair, IMO it reeks of censorship, hate-mongering and attempted character assasination. Read the first 3 paragraphs of this link [3] of a chapter by Elst to see a similar example. Or this link [4]. The use or non-use of a source or quote must be decided case by case, and according to WP:NPOV both sides of a debate can be quoted, not only the Muslim/Marxist side. This however is just an attempt to censor the Hindu side of the debate. --Soparnos 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20 June 2006

I thought that everybody here would like to know that the Category: Wikipedians by politics and all its subcategories are proposed for outright deletion. I believe this is a major form of censorship of members' beliefs and may also be a dangerous precedent for the deletion of other categories, including the very category of Wikipedians Against Censorship!

So, I think this major notion which is currently under debate is worth our attention and I strongly recommend that everybody read the on going discussion and voting on the issue, form their own opinion, and make their voice heard before it is too late! Tal :) 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. This is not the appropriate venue for this. This project is about censorship in articles, not about people's crusades to keep their userpages and social networks
  2. Your notice is non-neutral, which is at the very least questionable, and possibly a blockable offence. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For my response to the above accusation see the talk page. Tal :) 16:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 25 May 2006

All the people who have signed up to the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members between April 1st and May 22 have been removed. Josie dethiers 13:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Now fixed. Loom91 06:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 19 May 2006

Please sign this page if you are against censorship of userboxes on Wikipedia. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fredil_Yupigo/CAUBXD. Help us fight abusive admins trying to silence us. --GorillazFan Adam 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11 May 2006

  • I am concerned that editors on Juan Cole are resorting to censorship. Please see talk page of that article. elizmr 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5 April 2006

[edit] 4 April 2006

  • Wikipedia:Profanity has been modified to include Sam Korn's justification for deleting the Lolicon image. Kaldari 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia_talk:Censorship. As the original, better policy did not manage to find consensus I revised it to accomodate some forms of censorship and the revised version is now open for voting. Please make your opinions heard there. Thank you! Loom91 08:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Korn. Request for comment after an image that was kept in an IfD debate was unilaterally deleted for being "gratuitously offensive", despite there being two active on-wiki discussions about it (talk:Lolicon and user talk:Jimbo Wales). Thryduulf 00:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 April 2006

  • The Game, an article about a well-known topic, is up for restoration. It would be good if this article was uncensored. Sasha Slutsker 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This does not appear to be a example of censorship, but a debate about notability and encyclopedic merit. Kaldari 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24 March 2006

  • Straw poll at Talk:Lolicon regarding linking a drawing vs. displaying it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Since no one is proposing censoring Wikipedia, this entry seems inappropriate here. I see one editor has voted who has never posted to the talk page. I presume he come over because of this call for votes. -Will Beback 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • This project was formed as a side effect of Autofelatio. Readers of this project are well aware of our policy with respect to linkimage. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

****For anyone involved in the lolicon article image fresco: The disputed image on the article was deleted on the sole decision of a single adminstrator. This issue is currently in WP:RFC for the adminstrator's action right now, which can be found [here] Never mind, matter is over. The authority figure has already spoken. --Jqiz 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20 March 2006

Also note that that user has been banned: WP:LOBU. 68.39.174.238

[edit] 18 March 2006

[edit] 14 March 2006

  • Controversy in Talk:Justin Berry has largely subsided. Reverts of attempts to rebuild the article have ceased, and edits to the new version have mainly focused on better sourcing. HolokittyNX 13:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Part of the controversy was over the temporary (now indefinite) banning of User:Rookiee, author of the original article, for comments on Talk:Justin Berry which did not violate policy.
(Link to admin notice board discussion)
Upon review of User Talk:Neutrality, it also appears that Neutrality has not responded to admin Theresa Knott's email of 11th March concerning this block, despite having time to make 76 Wiki edits since 11th March.
HolokittyNX 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The block of user Rookiee hs been lifted by admin User:Zscout370 (see block log). HolokittyNX 06:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11 March 2006

  • Justin Berry article is in an edit-war over how much sensitive information to include about a living person. (original notice is still availabe on talk) ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Justin Berry The reason given by admin for the removal of the original article was a complaint by Mr. Berry, apparently concerning the sexual orientation of the article's author. HolokittyNX 13:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Justin Berry The reason given was "I'd like to see this article totally rewritten by uninvolved wikipedians." Metta Bubble puff 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if the above implies that TheresaKnott was responsible for the deletion of the original article or subsequent WP:OFFICE actions. She was not. I was trying to avoid pointing fingers at an individual, but I guess I should clarify the situation. The original article was deleted by Jimbo Wales, and the above quote by Metta Bubble is his stated reason. HolokittyNX 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 05 March 2006

[edit] 25 March 2006

[edit] 20 Feb 2006

[edit] 18 Feb 2006

  • The Electronic Frontier Foundation userbox has been speedily deleted under a bogus interpretation of CSD T1. Rogue 9 14:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 17 Feb 2006

  • The "user freespeech" template is up for deletion, just on the grounds that no one is using it. Herostratus 08:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It's the {{Freespeech}} template that's up for deletion, not {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}. I created the {{Freespeech}} template back in December, and I recently saw that nobody was using it, so I nominated it for deletion. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 16 Feb 2006

  • I nominated MediaWiki:Bad image list for deletion as I believe it's only useful as a form of censorship and has little impact on the ability of vandals to vandalise. Gerard Foley 22:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It's being voted on here

[edit] 31 Jan 2006

[edit] 29 Jan 2006

ALERT This issue is expanding in scope. Argument being presented is because image may be illegal in some country, it must be linkimaged. This will have broadreaching effects on the encyclopedia, as it quickly expands to block religious images and articles due to rules in Iran (and many, many, other countries), articles about neo-nazi's and holocaust denial due to rules in Germany, and articles generally due to rules in China. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an inaccurate summary of the situation, as legal issues were not the primary consideration. I had thought that parties agreed to not label legitimate editing as "censorship". -Will Beback 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20 Jan 2006

  • An article, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, is being considered for deletion. The movie would plainly be offensive to Muslims. A member of a group called The Muslim Guild put it up for deletion consideration. This user, Irishpunktom, sadly enough, claims to be a member of Wikipedians against censorship. I would encourage all members of this group to look at the article and give your opinions on whether or not this is an attempt at censorship. this article's entry Nortonew 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The German Wikipedia has come under legal pressure not to reveal the full surname of a deceased hacker in his Wikipedia article: Tron (hacker) (aka Boris Floricic). A preliminary injunction has prohibited German redirect page wikipedia.de from redirecting to the German edition of Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 Jan 2006

[edit] 05 Jan 2006

[edit] 04 Jan 2006

[edit] 31 Dec 2005

Yes, also make sure you see Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Comments_and_Voting, where a vote is being conducted on userbox policy. Let's stop censorship! Ronline ✉ 08:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I come down on the opposite side of this debate. I believe this is an article-space focused project, and not a use-space focused one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 28 Dec 2005

  • I figured I'd let everyone here know about the new stable versions policy proposal which seeks to restrict the freely-editable nature of Wikipedia by protecting articles once they are deemed to be "stable" and moving them to a separate namespace. This policy represents a structural change in the open nature of Wikipedia, and inhibits the freedom of users - even logged-in ones - in instantly updating an article, since openly-editable versions of articles will be called "working drafts" under the new proposal. For me, as a liberal Wikipedian, the proposed policy is quite unacceptable. While not exactly amounting to censorship, stable versions makes Wikipedia much more elitist and therefore much more biased towards deletionism/censorship. You can express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Stable versions. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24 Dec 2005

  • {{User democrat}} - A logo for the Democratic Party is trying to be censored under the guise of copyright issues when an actual lawyer BD2412 said there's likely no reason to fear any retribution even if there was a reason to fear retribution since legal action against Wikipedia would be a horrible PR gaffe for the party regardless. karmafist 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
karmafist, I urge you to read Wikipedia's guidelines concerning the use of copyrighted works as "fair use". User pages (where most user boxes are used) may not have copyrighted works as "fair use". Templates (of any kind) may also not have copyrighted works as "fair use". This is not censorship, but a policy set in place by Wikipedia to make it accessable world wide (beyond US copyright laws), encompassing as many nation-wide copyright policies as possible. TCorp 17:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 19 Dec 2005

[edit] 27 Oct 2005

  • Bushytails, the editor who brought information about Strapon Dildoes to the Main Page, is now up for Administratorship. Unfortunately, some have opposed him just for this bold and uncensored action. Whether you vote for him or not, please let the opposition know that information should WP:NOT be censored no matter where it is on Wikipedia, and those who try to spread information should not be punished for their attempts. Karmafist 02:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 23 Oct 2005

  • Hogtie bondage - debate about whether or not to include images of hogtie bondage that include nudity. Kaldari 19:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 18 Oct 2005

  • Template:Offensive revived, and then quickly nominated for deletion.
    • See also Template:Offensive/NewVersion (vote) and Template:Offensive/StealthVersion (vote)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship_Notice_board_archive_37b2.html"