UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/JebJ vs Kirsty Cotton

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


JebJ v. Kirsty Cotton

I would like to request arbitration for the Meany Auto Repair page. User Kirsty Cotton - http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Kirsty_cotton - and I are having a disagreement over whether a particular photo should be included there. I argue that the photo (and the associated text) is potentially offensive, and unnecessary to keep in the wiki (an opinion shared by Aichon - http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Thanatologist#JebJ), whereas Kirsty believes that the photo and text add needed flavor to the game/wiki. JebJ (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting case. I would be happy to arbitrate this case. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept DDR. --K 04:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. JebJ (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was just about the quickest setup to arbitration I've ever seen. DDR knows what to do next. —Aichon— 15:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Really! Really? Really. Sometimes I do wonder about this wiki. --Rosslessness 21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Where did you find that private picture of ME!?!? --Sally A. Summers i Ω i 01:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the fair solution to this is to also include a picture of a massive wab there too. Simple. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 23:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Soooo... is something happening with this? JebJ (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You should poke your arbitrator's talk page. If he's not responding for some reason, you two may want to select a different arbitrator. —Aichon— 08:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. I am so sorry to both of you, I had a fire in my house a month ago and all my computing gear got taken by insurance to be restored/replaced. So I completely forgot to pop into a lot of places on the web. My apologies to both of you. I am going overseas and won't have internet access until the 14th so I guess it's for the best if you choose a new arbitrator. Apologies again guys and the best of luck to both of you. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Eeep! Sorry to hear about that, DDR! Best of luck getting everything straightened out. Insurance can be a bear to deal with. JebJ (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate. ~Vsig.png 02:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. JebJ (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure. --K 21:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I will get this started just as soon as I get to a computer (don't want to do it on my mobile). In the meantime, if either of you want another user to represent you, please start on that. If not, just post here and I will get the abry page proper created and begin arbitration. ~Vsig.png 00:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine representing myself. JebJ (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Very well. If Kirsty also wants to represent herself, then I will begin arbitration. ~Vsig.png 17:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm good. --K 13:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's get this started. Below, I have started separate headers for you to use to state your case. Please provide links to any examples, policy or precedent which you feel supports your case. After you have both stated your case, you will then have an opportunity to reply using headers that I will create. If you are not Jeb or Kirsty, please do not comment on this case. Use the talk page if you want to discuss it. Any comments from other users, especially those misogynic in nature, will be moved to the discussion page and will not be considered during my ruling. Good luck to you both.

Arbitration

JebJ's statements

A wiki that disallows content only if it meets a standard of “direct attack/threat” – as asserted by Kristy – is one that can be ruled by content of almost any kind, masquerading as “role-playing.” In his famous quote, Samuel Johnson admonished us that we should not tolerate those who claim an identity (in his case, patriot; in this case, RP enthusiast) as their last refuge in a time when no other identity will protect them. In that spirit, I encourage people to think more broadly. We would not (I hope) approve of a page based on offensive stereotypes of members of a particular race, religion, or sexual orientation. In the same way, we should not accept one which stereotypes based on sex.

To say that this location should be protected as valid RP fails to take into account what most RP is, which is a coherent portrayal of characters or situations. Rather than being a nuanced (or realistic, or engaging, or enlightening) portrayal of the history of a location, and its former/current inhabitants, Meany Auto Repair instead represents a male fantasy of what women “should” be like: primarily, to be sexually attractive and available to men. The current text even acknowledges this fantasy by inviting the reader to “imagine [their] preferred size” of the breasts possessed by the women in the account. This is not RP – it is a sexual fantasy.

And even if we were to judge this content to be valid RP, the image that is included (which is really what’s at issue here) does not even follow the story in the text. Rather than depicting a sexy mechanically-inclined woman expertly fixing a car, it depicts a woman who is clearly not dressed as a mechanic, and who cannot aptly work on a car due to the size of her breasts. Not only does this demean women by implying they cannot work in traditionally male fields, it conflicts with the rather thin story, making it a perfect candidate for removal.

In terms of precedents, I began checking the wiki pages of auto repair shops, and even after finishing just the “A” and “B” entries, I had already encountered a wealth of different approaches for how to create RP surrounding what might be an otherwise mundane building. I came across several locations with descriptions of their shopsand the local area, but I also came across a pro-zombie repair shop, two feuding auto repair shops with similar names - Bythese Auto Repair and Bythesea Auto Repair - and even a brewery masquerading as a repair shop . These are all fun in their own way, and add an enjoyable element to the game which doesn’t demean anyone. Even the two entries I found which featured obvious sexual content - Blaxall Auto Repair and Bently Auto Repair - were fairly neutral, and provided no sexually-themed photographs to accompany the text. So, even in terms of other auto repair shops, Meany is an outlier, to say nothing of when we compare it with the thousands of existing pages, the majority of which have no offensive content, and which actually add something interesting to the game.

To sum up, the Meany page suffers from content that is offensive, yes, but perhaps even greater is its failure to meet basic RP standards, or to be in line with other similar pages elsewhere in the wiki. I move that the photo be removed, and that the community be allowed to decide what to do about the text. JebJ (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirsty Cotton's statements

With brevity? I'd like to first point to the responses on this page, which seem to indicate a general "wtf". The UD Wiki is based on user provided content, in this case: a tongue-in-cheek description of the previous(?) residents of a specific location within Malton. This is generally accepted behavior. However, the issue appears to be potential offensiveness. The wiki has historically sided that civility or offensiveness be judged on whether it is acceptable roleplaying versus a direct attack/threat. This is clearly a bit of RP, certainly not directed at any single individual or even presented in any manner other than joking. Therefore, I object to it's simple removal in the name of censorship of potentially offensive materials. As for the image specifically, I can find no better explanation for that image than the story already attached to it. Being a public page and I not being the original author, I have no problem with a change that improves the page and makes changes to any potentially offensive material, but simply removing relevant aspects of the page is not improvement. --K 23:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Replies

Before I open this up for you to reply to one another, I want to ask for a few points of clarification. Your answers to these questions will help me come to a ruling. Just reply under the headers below. ~Vsig.png 00:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Vapor's questions to Jeb

You said that the article "...fail[s] to meet basic RP standards...". Other than your own definition of Role Playing, could you point to any other standards to which editors should follow when injecting RP into UDWiki articles? ~Vsig.png 00:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Most true RP takes the form of people who portray, in text form, stories which are consistent with the world they've chosen. There's a lot of different standards that could apply to RP, depending on how you want to play a character, but this is a pretty good list. To give a summary:
- RP realistically: Make sure that the things you have your character say and do are consistent with the world in which they live. So, no god-mode, no crazy-unlikely feats, etc.
- RP in-character: Don't bring a bunch of stuff into a world that isn't appropriate there, especially things from the "real" world
- RP consistently: Don't change your character dramatically from session to session - one day s/he is outgoing and happy, the next brooding and shy, etc.
- RP in a (user-)friendly way: Don't assume relationships with other people, don't force relationships on other people, don't harass other people, respect people's limits
- RP respectfully: Don't judge people, don't interrupt people, don't bother people, etc.
- RP understandably: Make sure your writing is spelled correctly, and grammatically correct
JebJ (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Vapor's questions to Kirsty

Can you provide examples to substantiate your statement, "The wiki has historically sided that civility or offensiveness be judged on whether it is acceptable roleplaying versus a direct attack/threat."? ~Vsig.png 00:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure I'll take a stab at it.

I don't think you were also asking for examples of the direct attack or threat being removed, but I'll try to round up one or two if you were? I recognize, not everything I listed has the same "not deleted" status as CK, but I think the lack of attempts should generally show the wiki's sensibilities. --K 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I was more curious to see specific examples where something potentially offensive was being judged on weather it was role play or a direct attack. I think maybe your intent behind the statement is clear. But if you can find a specific example, I'd like to see it. Or if you want to clarify your statement you could do that here. ~Vsig.png 01:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Some clarification possibly... Offensive material is generally acceptable unless it: is grossly inappropriate, is used to harass or antagonize, is criminal or a violation of the wiki TOS, is not relevant to UD or the wiki. That might be better? --K 04:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your points of clarification. During the next stage of arbitration, you may reply to o.e another. Use the headers below to add any counter-arguments you may have. You may comment on any part of the statements above, including statements made in reply to my questions above. ~Vsig.png 05:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeb's replies to Kirsty

I am a big fan of debating openly and without pretense, and so I take issue with some of the things that have been said about the Meany page. I’ll deal first with the ways that what I have said has been misinterpreted (whether intentionally or not). My comments, in context, were:

Jeb said:
“And even if we were to judge this content to be valid RP, the image that is included (which is really what’s at issue here) does not even follow the story in the text. Rather than depicting a sexy mechanically-inclined woman expertly fixing a car, it depicts a woman who is clearly not dressed as a mechanic, and who cannot aptly work on a car due to the size of her breasts. Not only does this demean women by implying they cannot work in traditionally male fields, it conflicts with the rather thin story, making it a perfect candidate for removal.”

The response to this was:

Kristy said:
”I could believe the woman was a former hooker, she appears to be working on a car. That is the story.”

This is not entirely accurate. The story depicts women who, after working as prostitutes, obtain the tools necessary to become mechanics. The story also implies that the women are at least moderately skilled, or else the neighbors wouldn’t keep bringing their cars to the shop, and offering protection in exchange for these services. Therefore, any images which are intended to go along with this story should depict women who are skilled at working on cars. If that’s the way someone wants to role-play, that’s fine with me. However, in order for the role-play to be consistent, all elements of it need to hang together. Which brings me to this:

Kristy said:
“Are there specific clothing that must be worn by a mechanic? At a certain breast size are you no longer allowed to be a mechanic? The only implication that women cannot work in traditionally male fields is Jeb's assertion that because the woman in the image isn't wearing what Jeb thinks she should and that Jeb thinks her breast are too large for her to have any skill as a mechanic.”

This strikes me as an intentionally disingenuous approach to my comments, which is not an ethical way to approach a debate. Contrary to what Kristy asserts, my point is not that a woman’s breast size has anything to do with her mental or mechanical ability. Rather, going back to realistic role-play, the fact is that in order for someone to be able to work on a car, they need to be able to get underneath the car. A mechanically-inclined woman with big breasts would obviously need to elevate a car in order to work on it properly. The woman depicted in the photo is not doing this, nor is she dressed the way a mechanic would be, nor does she have the tools a skilled mechanic would, nor is she in the setting that a skilled mechanic would operate in. Therefore, a reasonable person would conclude that the woman depicted is not a skilled mechanic, which does not fit with the story.

Also, at the risk of stating the obvious: yes, there is clothing which is traditionally worn by mechanics. All one needs to do is do a Google image search for “mechanic.” What are the people depicted in these images wearing? The vast majority of them are wearing dark-colored overalls, or dark-colored jumpsuits, with boots or (at the very least) close-toed shoes. Why? Because mechanics frequently encounter dirty, sharp, and hot surfaces in their work. Wearing short, white clothes (as the woman in the image is) and open footwear makes no sense for a mechanic. So, despite assertions to the contrary, I think that if we’re being honest, everyone can agree that the image does not depict the kind of person mentioned in the story.

Therefore, when Kristy says

Kristy said:
“I cannot imagine how anyone could think the image is sexual in nature,”

my reply is: your imagination must be quite limited, because everything about this image is intended to present the woman in a sexual way: her tight clothing with the bra showing through, her abnormally large breasts, her exposed legs, her pose inviting the viewer to gawk, etc. Reasonable people (myself included) would agree that the image isn’t porn, but a reasonable person would also surely agree that it’s a sexual image.

So, having addressed that, let’s move on to the issue of role-playing.

Kristy said:
“I did note in the clarification section Jeb did not include this RP "rule" from his source: Don’t flirt with/molest non-smut-characters to extreme extents. Meany is certainly not extreme and it is not forced on anyone. Don't like it, don't look at it.”

The standard of, “don’t like it, don’t look at it” is a non-starter. Should that standard be applied in cases where users post porn, or gory photos, in the course of their RP? What about offensive screeds? Clearly not. But the same is true of more conventional content as well. What if someone begins posting RP laden with advertisements? Or RP content which is completely irrelevant to the game, or which users feel – for whatever reason – has no place in the wiki? No. Simply saying, “if you don’t like it, leave” is not a solution.

Kristy said:
“This one was also missing: Don’t try to change how someone else RP’s a character due to personal preference only. Although in this case, it's a location history rather than a character, there seems no reason a similar sentiment wouldn't apply. It would have been easy to post on the talk asking about changing the page, see if anyone objects and base a decision on that, but that isn't what happened. It would have been slightly more difficult to simply find an acceptable image, tweak the story and leave the page in a similar condition minus the "offensive" material. Instead, Jeb went the option of just deleting what offended Jeb.”

Here I’ll agree that it would have been great if there could have been a nuanced discussion of this without arbitration. But, in my defense: take a look around. How many people visit the wiki anymore? Nowhere near the amount that did in the game’s heyday. What are the chances that, had I posted a request for a detailed analysis of Meany’s content, that I would have received a meaningful response? Probably pretty low. In fact, when I edited the page, I received just two comments of any kind – those from Aichon and those from Kristy. So, in this environment of general disuse, and using the wiki approach of “fix it yourself,” I decided to do what I could to improve a game that I enjoy. It just so happened that Kristy had the page on a watchlist and took issue with what I had done. We did have an exchange to try to resolve our differences, but that did not appear to be possible, so I requested arbitration. So, I think I followed the proper procedures in a way consistent with the current state of the wiki.

As for the standard of “Don’t try to change how someone else RP’s a character due to personal preference only,” I think this standard has been misinterpreted as well. First, this is not just my preference we’re talking about. In fact, the very first person who commented on it – Aichon – agreed with my decision. So it isn’t as if I am a person whose oddball tastes are being forced on the UD wiki. There is a genuine disagreement about this issue.

Second, this isn’t even really about my personal preference at all. As I’ve outlined above, the photo involved in this case simply does not fit with the RP setup that was established. Had it been both related and appropriate, I probably wouldn’t have deleted it (even if it remained offensive). However, since it is both unrelated and offensive, it does not meet the standards of the wiki. As I outlined in my initial statements, the vast majority of other auto repair shops contain either no images at all, or relevant images only.

Third, I would argue that there is a hierarchy of rules in RP. The first consideration should be whether the RP content meets basic standards, and only then should we consider more esoteric/subjective points such as whether people’s styles conflict or not. To be clear, it is invalid to claim as your defense that you are RP’ing if your RP style does not fit the reality of the world you’re supposed to be inhabiting. In the case of Meany in particular, as I argued initially, the Meany page represents not a valid RP, but instead a sexual fantasy. This is supported by the invitation to “imagine your preferred size” bra on the women in question, and the unrelated photo. Therefore, this RP does not meet even basic standards – and therefore needs to be fixed through removal of the photo and improvement of the text – before we get into any concerns of whether the style conflicts in any way.

Fourth, I am on record as not having any problem with sexualized RP styles. In fact, I even cited some examples in my initial statement that, I would argue, are valid forms of RP. What I object to are RP styles that are internally inconsistent in addition to being offensive.

To conclude – one final thing we need to be aware of is the context in which this debate is occurring. One can no longer deny that video games are biased based on sex. Research has shown that women are portrayed less often in games and when they are represented, they are more likely to be sexualized and given less agency than male characters.

Furthermore, even the most passing familiarity with the recent controversy over depictions of women in video games will be aware that there is an ongoing debate over how women are represented in games. As a community, I think it makes sense for us to orient ourselves towards being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. So, rather than defending the use of shallow, exploitative images and stories in the wiki, we should instead be encouraging deeper, more realistic RP which is consistent with the world which our characters inhabit. We should also be strive to be a community that doesn’t knowingly promote content which depicts women as sex objects. JebJ (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirsty's replies to Jeb

My issue is not with bringing Meany into line with the desires of the community. As far as I can tell, the only member of the community asked an opinion on the change was Aichon. Even at this point, we aren't asking for opinions of the community, Jeb is asking the arbitration process to force the image to be removed. I cannot imagine how anyone could think the image is sexual in nature. Want to call it misogynistic? Not really, but I can see why (although really that's personal bias saying big breasts must equal stupid). Sexual? No. And apparently the image is why we are here:

Jeb said:
And even if we were to judge this content to be valid RP, the image that is included (which is really what’s at issue here) does not even follow the story in the text.

I could believe the woman was a former hooker, she appears to be working on a car. That is the story.

Jeb said:
Rather than depicting a sexy mechanically-inclined woman expertly fixing a car, it depicts a woman who is clearly not dressed as a mechanic, and who cannot aptly work on a car due to the size of her breasts. Not only does this demean women by implying they cannot work in traditionally male fields, it conflicts with the rather thin story, making it a perfect candidate for removal.

Are there specific clothing that must be worn by a mechanic? At a certain breast size are you no longer allowed to be a mechanic? The only implication that women cannot work in traditionally male fields is Jeb's assertion that because the woman in the image isn't wearing what Jeb thinks she should and that Jeb thinks her breast are too large for her to have any skill as a mechanic.

I did note in the clarification section Jeb did not include this RP "rule" from his source: Don’t flirt with/molest non-smut-characters to extreme extents. Meany is certainly not extreme and it is not forced on anyone. Don't like it, don't look at it. This one was also missing: Don’t try to change how someone else RP’s a character due to personal preference only. Although in this case, it's a location history rather than a character, there seems no reason a similar sentiment wouldn't apply. It would have been easy to post on the talk asking about changing the page, see if anyone objects and base a decision on that, but that isn't what happened. It would have been slightly more difficult to simply find an acceptable image, tweak the story and leave the page in a similar condition minus the "offensive" material. Instead, Jeb went the option of just deleting what offended Jeb. --K 07:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ruling

I'd like to start by repeating that this has been an interesting case. Unfortunately you have not made it very easy on me. But fortunately, because of the interesting nature of the case, I have taken liberties of doing some leg work. I think I've come to a ruling that is fair and will cover most all of the issues brought up during the case.

  • Role-Play

I was surprised and a bit disappointed that so much of this case revolved around role-play. I thought that Jeb correctly stated that "A wiki that disallows content only if it meets a standard of “direct attack/threat” – as asserted by Kristy – is one that can be ruled by content of almost any kind, masquerading as 'role-playing.'" However, he then went on to base nearly his entire defense on Kirsty's assertion that this be allowed under acceptable role-play.

When I asked Jeb to point to some standards to which editors should hold themselves, I had hoped that he would realize there are no official standards. Instead, Jeb posted on off-site link to a role playing "guide". I do not think it can be reasonably expected for UDWiki editors to follow this guide. Not only is it an outside source, it is one that was written 4 years after the edit in question. Furthermore, I cannot see where The Meany Auto page violates any of the 6 posted bullet points; it was realistic (no godlike superpowers), in-character, consistent, user-friendly (no relationships forced on others), respectful (at least in the context as was presented), and understandable.

Later, when Kirsty clarified her statements, she removed any mention of role-play, saying, "Offensive material is generally acceptable unless it: is grossly inappropriate, is used to harass or antagonize, is criminal or a violation of the wiki TOS, is not relevant to UD or the wiki." I thought this was a more accurate statement, though still lacking much in the way of supporting precedent or policy.

Ultimately, the role-play defense played little role in my ruling. There was just too little precedent or policy presented to me to make any official ruling based on what is acceptable role-play. I instead try to focus on the other points raised.

  • Location Pages

Jeb, you said that you could find no other similarly written auto repair location pages. I know you did not go through them all and I would not expect anyone to. The failure in this logic is that Auto Repair Shop is only one type of location, and similarly written location pages do exist on this wiki. Several examples can be found on the Amusing Locations in Malton page (some locations such as The Longman Monument and Hooker Bank also use sexually themed images).

I also looked at policy and guidelines to see what is allowed on location pages. The Location Style Guide is most often referenced for what is to be allowed on location pages. It states that

UDWiki:Location Style Guide said:
When possible location pages should include a picture to illustrate the page. Images should be included either as part of or above the description section. Icons for revive points, MalTel, and any other location focused organization should be placed here as well.

I added emphasis on "location focused organizations" because that is what this is. Though no group pages exists for whatever organization operated from this location, we can infer from the related pages Steed Road, Iamnot and The Great Tandem Accident that there was in fact a group of individuals that operated out of this location in 2008 which role-played as prositutes. The image in question is in the correct spot according to the Style Guide.

  • Civility

Kirsty, you cited that the wiki lacks a civility/offensiveness policy. First, I want to point out that these are two mutually exclusive concepts. You can be offensive whilst being civil and likewise you can be decent whilst being uncivil. When people cite the lack of a civility policy on UDWiki, they mean that there is no policy similar to Wikipedia's Civility Policy. That policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. It covers personal attacks, harassment, rudeness, taunting and other interactions between users. It does not cover edits which others may find offensive.

Instead, UDWiki handles incivility on a case-by-case basis. Restraining orders weren't uncommon in the wiki's heydays and there are policies, such as the Scheduled Deletion for pages that have swearing in the title that is directed at a user or group.

Jeb, though you didn't state it explicitly, part of your defense was that the Meany Auto page was a form of harassment or attack. Specifically you felt that it was an attack on women. Unfortunately, that is not a valid defense because there is no policy or precedent to back it, and I'm afraid you can't simply claim personal attack on an entire gender.

  • Offensiveness

Offensiveness is another topic which the wiki tends to handle on a case-by-case basis. As Kirsty pointed out, there are several examples of offensive material being questioned in the past. There are three groups, 2 Cool, Columbine Kids and User:Cornholioo which pushed the envelope on offensive topics such as sex, violence and racism, respectively. I'll focus largely on 2 Cool during this ruling because of the sexual nature of this case.

Part of Kirsty's defense was that "Pages like these existed so this one should too" but with a bit of searching, you'll see that these groups did not always get away with being offensive. Combat 18 may exists, but a very similar page Wotan's Templar was deleted due to it's offensive nature. The members of 2 Cool may have added a lot of sexually charged content on the wiki, but both Jed and Nallan were eventually banned for personal attacks and racist remarks.

2 Cool even brags about some of their wiki content causing waves through the wiki:

2 Cool said:
2 Cool's wiki endeavours have caused a degree of drama in the past, including the "Quality Control incident", and several deletions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), an assortment of vandalism cases, as well as a variety of arbitration cases:

Of extremely important note, the case of Karek vs Nallan and J3D is about as near a perfect precedent as I could have ask for. It was ruled that 2 Cool's edits to Cockburn Plaza Railway Station be removed because they featured blatant reference to sexual acts. But also the arbiter in that case, Seventythree, had this to say:

Seventythree said:
In conclusion, double entendres are O.K, as is the occasional innuendo based joke in the history part of some of the locations pages. Jokes reffering to blatant graphical representations of sexual acts are not o.k though. So, this sentance is ok:

Cockburn Plaza was, prior to the erection of the railway station, known for its famous sperm bank, which was the subject of many an immature joke at the nearby Woolford Boulevard School in Foulkes Village.

But this sentence is not:

The sperm bank was renowned for its lack of "stimulating materials", resulting in the common rash known as cock burn.

It's the difference between that vaugely annoying picture/animation of a bouncing pair of breasts and a picture of a naked woman. While the first is allowed, though certain people may find it tasteless and vaugely sexist the second would obviously not be allowed.

His ruling specifically states that pictures of breasts are allowed on location pages, as long as they are not bare breasts.

  • Nudity/Pornagraphy

As Kirsty pointed out, the wiki has a fairly loose definition of pornography, though that wasn't always the case. That scheduled deletion was eventually struck by popular vote. Basically, a potentially pornographic image can be reported as vandalism and the sysop team can vote on it. If it is deemed pornographic, it will be removed as a vandal edit. Obvious porn is of course deleted on site still, but this image of a fully clothed woman, though provocative perhaps, is hardly obvious porn.

This is, however not a case about deleting a sexually charged image. It is about removing it from use on a location page. If Jeb had put the image up for deletion, it could be it would be another thing altogether. His argument is about it's use, however and so that changes things. I don't feel that the Pornography deletion vote has any bearing here.

  • Censorship

Kirsty briefly touched on this subject but I thought it was one that deserved more talking points. The wiki community certainly has a lot to say about it. As Kirsty pointed out, Columbine Kids was once nominated for deletion and was subsequently saved because most users advocated for free speech. The same can be said for Combat 18. When it comes to removing content, the wiki wants hard policy or precedent or else the wiki cries censorship.

Jeb, in your closing statements you imply that the wiki should stop objectifying women and become a part of the solution and not a part of the problem. You want to accomplish this in part by removing offending material. By the same logic, if you wanted other games to be a part of that solution, they would need to be pulled from their shelves and/or edited and re-released. That sounds an awful lot like censorship to me. You may have brought up some decent points but about the nature of the gaming industry but do the means really justify the ends if we're to sterilize everything in the name of progressive thinking?

In Conclusion

So what does this all mean? We've got a group that existed in game and they added their own brand of style to a location page. They did not break any formatting rules per the Location Style Guide. I am judging it on its offensive nature alone, not as harassment, not as pornography, and not as it's merit as acceptable role-play. There is some pretty specific case precedent which supports the use of the image. That same case precedent supports the removal of any depiction of sexual acts. My ruling therefore is this:

  1. The image at the top of Meany Auto Repair is to stay
  2. References to sexual acts will be removed from the article
    • No alternative text was suggested so I will make these changes
  3. The comments from the talk page that were removed by Jeb are to be restored, as I consider this a form of censorship
  4. I place no other restrictions on either Jeb or Kirsty from editing Meany Auto Repair, as long as it does not violate any part of this ruling

Thank you again for bringing this case here and for allowing me to arbitrate. ~Vsig.png 08:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/JebJ_vs_Kirsty_Cotton&oldid=2225997"