UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Mark D. Stroyer vs Gage
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Mark D. Stroyer vs. Gage
On Gage's user page, there is a figure of a naked woman, represented by by letters and symbols. I want it off the wiki. If he wants to look at it in notepad, fine, just not here.
Pages affected: Portions of Gage's user page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark_D._Stroyer (talk • contribs) .
- Okay, I'll bite. I will accept only one of these people as arbitrator. If you have a problem with this short list, you can go get bent.
- Like I said, if you don't find any of these guys acceptable good luck finding someone I'll accept.--Gage 00:03, 12 April 2007 (BST)
- I'll accept, if Mark does. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 02:43, 12 April 2007 (BST)
- I'll accept pretty much anyone. -Mark D. Stroyer SoH 04:06, 12 April 2007 (BST)
- i am willing to arbitrate on this case. I need gage to give me the phone number, name and more pics of the model used in the ascii image. This situation must be covered deeply, and hardly, and i need to speak to her, alone, in my bed, to see if she have anything against this outrageous case. In the meantime, i would like to invite mark to do something more productive than removing a harmless image from the wiki claiming think about the children, when there is places all over the web where they can get more hi-res images than that. Grow up, if someone is looking for porn they would not look here, and if someone look at gage's image they will only find it funny and perhaps copy-pasting it in their myspace or something. Nuff said, case dismissed ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:49, 12 April 2007 (BST)
- I'll accept, if Mark does. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 02:43, 12 April 2007 (BST)
Both parties need to agree on a single arbitrator before the case can proceed. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 05:10, 12 April 2007 (BST)
- well, the arbitration guidelines dosnt say that they need to accept a single arbitrator... what if he/she is married ? he. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 05:36, 12 April 2007 (BST)
If Mark will accept anyone, then Thari is the guy.--Gage 06:27, 12 April 2007 (BST)
- He shouldn't. While I would be impartial, I have my opinion formed on this matter.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 08:53, 12 April 2007 (BST)
So the current state of this case is: Willing to arbitrate:
Not willing.
No reaction yet.
Mark D. Stroyer, it is best to pick a specific person of this list, preferably somebody who has already commented willingness to arbitrate, Or if you prefer Zombie slay3r or boxy that you say so here and ask them personally. That way this case can get moving along quickly.--Vista 12:05, 12 April 2007 (BST)
- I'd rather not ATM, seeing there seem to be so many others willing and able and acceptable -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:16, 12 April 2007 (BST)
Tah case
Mark, if you wanna add something to the case, put it here, if not, say so. Then Gage makes his rebuttal and then you do yours. And that's pretty much it. So, go!--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 01:20, 14 April 2007 (BST)
Nothing more to present. -Mark D. Stroyer SoH 04:06, 15 April 2007 (BST)
Okay, well, if he is going to make it this easy for me I just have a few links I want you to follow. These are all links where you can find literally dozens of pictures containing (*gasp*) actual nudity on a wiki.
I could dig up more. I really could. My picture is a joke. It isn't really a picture of a naked woman, it is a collection of textual symbols and letters that appears to be a naked woman. 'Nuff said. Grow a sense of humor guys. Really.--Gage 05:02, 15 April 2007 (BST)
- And that proves what? That pornography can get past the SysOps? Also, those actually have, to some extent, something to do with the page they're dealing with. Yours doesn't. Also, ever heard of Pointillism? -Mark D. Stroyer SoH 00:47, 16 April 2007 (BST)
- It proves that there is plenty of nudity on the wiki. And no, that 'pornography' didn't get past the censors at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is uncensored. Completely uncensored. Type in 'vagina' into a google image search and see what you get. Hell, search for 'girl'. The first one is pornographic in nature. If someone wanted to find porn, why would they look here? The image is a joke.
- I don't see why the hell you are bringing Pointillism into this debate. My point stands that this isn't really a photograph of a naked woman. Please quit wasting my time with this stupidity.--Gage 08:23, 16 April 2007 (BST)
- And we aren't censured? Allow me to bring up this and this, which you yourself voted brought up for deletion. Furthermore, your last sentence is, in fact, a form of propaganda, as an appeal to ridicule. Also, if someone could paint something so that it was completely picture-perfect, would it be pornography? -Mark D. Stroyer SoH 21:57, 16 April 2007 (BST)
- It might be in that case. Please, look at my user page and tell me that is picture perfect.--Gage 22:36, 16 April 2007 (BST)
- Plato believed that the plays should be banned from viewing because the sex was implied, rather than explicit, and that was worse because it forced the viewer to think about it. -Mark D. Stroyer SoH 00:39, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- It might be in that case. Please, look at my user page and tell me that is picture perfect.--Gage 22:36, 16 April 2007 (BST)
- And we aren't censured? Allow me to bring up this and this, which you yourself voted brought up for deletion. Furthermore, your last sentence is, in fact, a form of propaganda, as an appeal to ridicule. Also, if someone could paint something so that it was completely picture-perfect, would it be pornography? -Mark D. Stroyer SoH 21:57, 16 April 2007 (BST)
- ???Plato has been dead for over 2000 years and the world moves on. If this was anywhere but a user page you might have a point but unless you are going to ban any and all content which has nothing to do with zombies then just leave the man and his mathematical fetish alone ;-) --Honestmistake 00:44, 17 April 2007 (BST)
I want a ruling on this case. I presented my side, he presented his. I don't want to argue over this anymore.--Gage 02:06, 17 April 2007 (BST)
Ruling
I don't see enough reasons to force gage to remove the image from his userpage, because I don't find it offensive or anything. But if Mark really wants it removed, I encourage him to place the image in A/D, if Mark wins, Gage deletes the picture and end of story, if Mark loses, the picture stays and he learns to live with it. That's it.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:34, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- It isn't an image or page, and is therefore not subject to the rules of Deletions or Speedy Deletions anyway.--Gage 06:51, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- It's part of my ruling, my almighty ruling can bend the laws of the wiki.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 07:26, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- Those rules are pretty hardcoded... considering the fact that it isn't actually an image. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 07:49, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- As far as I can see thari's ruling is that for this specific case is that we consider the specific text as if it is a picture. That way it would fall under the rules of A/D. I think declaring it as falling under the picture rules is actually within the limits of an arbitration case. Hardly matters of course as far more graphic pictures have been kept, so Mark D. Stroyer would simply waste more time. is something we should be able to do. Otherwise it would open up a vandalism loophole. I'd rather not do that to simply end a case faster when it has a dead certain outcome anyway.--Vista 08:04, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- Good point. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 08:29, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- If you want to declare them pictures, then start a policy about it, I don't think arbitration is for that.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 15:51, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- You misread me. I don't want to declare all ascii art as pictures, I want arbitrators to be able to defer ascii art to A/D on a case by case basis. Right now I don't see enough problems with ascii art to add another rule either through policy discussion (or Arbitration.) But letting an arbitrator send it to A/D is a quick, easy and democratic way to deal with this sort of content problems. And as far as I can tell it's well within the arbitrators power to do so. And it permits us to wait and see if ascii art ever becomes such a problem that actual rules are needed.--Vista 19:10, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- As far as I can see thari's ruling is that for this specific case is that we consider the specific text as if it is a picture. That way it would fall under the rules of A/D. I think declaring it as falling under the picture rules is actually within the limits of an arbitration case. Hardly matters of course as far more graphic pictures have been kept, so Mark D. Stroyer would simply waste more time. is something we should be able to do. Otherwise it would open up a vandalism loophole. I'd rather not do that to simply end a case faster when it has a dead certain outcome anyway.--Vista 08:04, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- Those rules are pretty hardcoded... considering the fact that it isn't actually an image. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 07:49, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- It's part of my ruling, my almighty ruling can bend the laws of the wiki.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 07:26, 17 April 2007 (BST)
