UDWiki talk:Administration/Deletions

Archive

• Archive, from 2006 to 2008

Discussion

Boobs (various)

I want to take a minute to bask in the hilarity of this statement for a moment. All right. Now that we are all composed aga-...seriously Bob? You admitted to getting gay porn for your birthday? Really? If that's not template-worthy, I don't know what is.

Ahem.

So, yes. A show of hands for those who didn't see something like this or this coming when Bob was promoted. I know I was shocked to see him continuing his normal habits even while being a sysop. It pretty much follows him whenever he is put in any sort of position of power. Ah well. I warned you. Now let's enjoy this crazy ride as long as it goes on for! Oh, and Bob, to prove this isn't some sort of vendetta, I expect that you'll be going through all of the images in order to find all of the "offensive images". Right?--Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 11:18, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I already tried putting images that were submitted to me up for deletion. Look how well that turned out; you're barking mad if you think I'm going anywhere near those things again until we get something more definitive in place. In the meantime you are more than welcome to assert that I'm on a vendetta if that's what makes you happy. --Cyberbob 11:29, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I would be interested to know what relevance my promotion has to my actions here, by the way. Nothing I've done apart from the actual deletion of those first two images has been anything a normal user couldn't have done. --Cyberbob 11:31, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Also, "technically", Bob deleted these images as he was alerted to them. I see no vendetta.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:32, 17 July 2009 (BST)

"technically" that is not true as Bob was well aware of the existence of all of them long before then. Still no real harm and no real foul as at least he didn't just KOS as he might "technically" be allowed too. (I love the word technically... its great how it always seems to mean almost exactly the opposite of what it actually means :D) --Honestmistake 11:39, 17 July 2009 (BST)

GIVE uz The logs or it did not happen... He didz not know withoutz the logs.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:40, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Like I implied before (forget where), it is possible for standards and opinions to change over the course of years. --Cyberbob 11:43, 17 July 2009 (BST)

There is a difference between a trusted user and a regular user, thus you are held to higher scrutiny. I'm merely pointing out how nothing has really changed. You're still doing the same things as before, and are clearly starting to cause grumblings in the community, and I note some of the sysops as well. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 11:49, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Old Image Deletion Request

File:Feon.jpg

I notice that both Iscariot and J3D have now included the image on their sub-pages. Wow, don't you guys have anything better to do than "save" images that no one, not even the author, wants -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:14 26 March 2009 (BST)

He already had it? Dammit. Also i would usually have some better things to do, but seeing as they are done i've downsized to saving poor helpless images.--xoxo 12:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh....

Anything we can do about this? Category:Allied Travellers Organisation. It burns my eyes. --Haliman - Talk 02:53, 13 May 2009 (BST)

What's wrong with it? --Pestolence^(talk) 03:10, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Look at all of the subpages. The categories fine, but those pages... --Haliman - Talk 03:17, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Group Subpages...i.e. off limits unless the group itself is nuked...from orbit....twice. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:19, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Not even for Crit 1 not edited since 07? /me goes to cry in a corner. --Haliman - Talk 03:21, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Gaah, two edit conflicts in a row. But yeah, they've gotta stay until ATO is removed. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (BST)

I'm seriously gonna be haunted by that category for days to come now. --Haliman - Talk 03:30, 13 May 2009 (BST)

I'm sure you'll be able to sleep at night. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:33, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Yes... /checks under the bed for the wiki monster. Alright, enough with the spam. I got my answer. --Haliman - Talk 03:35, 13 May 2009 (BST)

If it makes you feel better, I made all those pages in the ATO namespace back when I was a group-UD-player, so you have me to blame. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:54, 13 May 2009 (BST)

May 2009

Bub

Moved from main page.

1. Delete - It's a character page in the mainspace created by someone who isn't its owner. What next? A Petro character page in the mainspace? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:03, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Would that be because his name is all over the wiki and the game so is an exception due to owner privilege and common sense. I don't see Bub's name in the same places. We move or delete the characters of normal users to their own user space, but Kevan didn't even create this. The character's got one piece of relevant information, it belongs to Kevan, that's it. Petro's done more to effect this game as a character but we aren't creating pages about him in the mainspace, same with Jorm or anyone else who's had a major impact. Why? Because character pages should only exist if created by the owner and in their namespace. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:31, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:55, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan. -- Cheese 14:53, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:56, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan? -- Cheese 14:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:59, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan?! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan! Living a lie!! -- Cheese 15:03, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan...--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:01, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   This is the indent police, I'm fining you all for overuse of idents. --  RoosterDragon  15:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Timmy!! Kevan!! -- Cheese 15:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   hahaha you guys are sooooo rnadum and "lulzy" xDDDDDD --Cyberbob 15:16, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   i no rite? lol!!!1!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   The page is there to teach. If no one wants to learn it, it shouldn't be there. But Bub is a celebraty. You know why? Kevan.--TripleU 17:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)

   Dude at least bother to use a tinyurl *sighs* --xoxo 10:39, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Kevan is a redirect, which is what i think Bub should become, are the 3 of you saying you agree with me? --xoxo 08:19, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I think Bub should stay as it's own page because...Kevan.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:30, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I remember getting an escalation for spamming up the admin pages for shit like this, odd how it's one rule for some, another for sysops isn't it? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)

You honestly can't see the difference? ^{(hint: the difference isn't that you're not a sysop)} --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:22, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Pray tell what the difference is Mid. I'm tired right now and I can't figure it out either. v_v --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:30, 29 May 2009 (BST)

If you can't see a difference, then you should be giving out warnings to the people involved. Unless, of course, you think Iscariot was unjustly punished? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 03:35, 30 May 2009 (BST)

The only real difference I'm seeing is the fact of being Iscariot or not. --Cyberbob 04:33, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Either I'm thinking of a different case or you're all blind as fuck. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:00, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, right now, I'm blind in my right eye. It kind of sucks. But mostly I'm just tired and I don't want to think.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:06, 30 May 2009 (BST)

This? -- Cheese 18:21, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Iscariot couldn't be talking about that. The circumstances are just too different. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:02, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Welp, I was thinking of something completely different that when I actually went back and looked at it turned out not to have involved Iscariot at all. --Cyberbob 14:09, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Reworking the porn scheduled deletion

Recent cases have shown the lack of definition for porn has become problematic in regards for the porn scheduled deletion. There's no clear "definition" for porn - which is problematic when sysops can define anything remotely sexual as porn. In short, the porn scheduled deletion needs a rework to remove the huge gray area that's in the current version.

As I see it, we've got four ways to solve this:

1. Leave it - obviously not my preferred way of going foward, considering the problems with the current one. But if the community wills it...
2. Change the current porn deletion to include a definition of porn (ether in the wording of the deletion itself or in a linked-to page.) This doesn't cover sexually explicit material which isn't porn (the current gray area.) I wouldn't call goatse porn, but it still should be deleted on sight.
3. Change the current porn scheduled deletion (as above,) but include a speedy deletion criterion for sexually explicit material. This means that another sysop will have to check the item before deletion, and the community has time to vote keep on it if they don't think it's too explicit.
4. Remove the scheduled deletion, and summary delete all porn under the TOU (probably the worst idea, as the TOU can be quite vague and we still haven't figured out how to interpret a lot of it.)

Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  03:13, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Redundant. Remove it, pretend like that scheduled deletion vote never happened. Actual porn or unsavory material gets deleted anyway. The scheduled deletion is entirely pointless. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:18, 7 July 2009 (BST)

^^^^^ --Cyberbob 03:27, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Option 5 is that it becomes a scheduled deletion after the upload of the image is deemed to be vandalism on A/VB. This catches "real" porn quite easily, and borderline cases like those that get taken to misconduct are discussed and a majority of the sysops is required for the deletion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:10 7 July 2009 (BST)

If an image is even vaguely ambiguous it should be able to get nuked on the spot (my keep vote on the other thing was keeping the current criteria in mind) IMO. As for vandalism... I wouldn't mind seeing that become an option but there would need to be a fairly explicit warning against uploading images of such a nature somewhere (not the welcome template as it's pretty obvious that nobody reads it). --Cyberbob 04:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

(this does not extend to non-sexual portrayals of the nude body - I'm thinking classical art and whatnot here) --Cyberbob 04:19, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Obviously inappropriate images should be nuked, no argument, but not ambiguous ones. If the sysop has doubts as to whether any other sysops may disagree, it should be discussed. We can put a warning about inappropriate images on MediaWiki:Uploadtext -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:25 7 July 2009 (BST)

That's a point. The MediaWiki idea is good too. --Cyberbob 04:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds good. Obvious porn is vandalism and is sent to A/VB then deleted, while ambiguous cases are sent to A/D. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:28, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I would have thought A/SD rather than A/D? --Cyberbob 05:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Don't care ether way. If a community member (or sysop) doesn't think it's porn, then they can just vote keep and send it to A/D. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:39, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Again, this is a wiki about Urban Dead. There should be nothing sexual on here at all. If it is questionable enough that a reasonable sysop wants it deleted then it should be deleted. You can't justify anything sexual on here. Violent - yes. Sexual - no. Violence and sex are not the same. The game won't even let you spray paint obscenities on the walls, why should you be allowed to post pictures of dicks and boobs on the wiki? --– Nubis ^NWO 03:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I really hate to knock you on it Nubis, but we cuss all the time here. You know as well as I that if we start using the "This is the game's wiki. We need to keep it as clean as in there" card, people will push those sorts of things to be enforced and no one will be happy.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

There's nothing stopping you from swearing ingame as long as you don't do it on the radio. I guess you could draw a parallel between the radio and policy documents? --Cyberbob 04:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I propose we accept a certain definition for automatically deletable images, but anything outside that definition that is veiwed as offencive to someone could be put up to vote.... not unlike it is now but, we need a stricter (As in set in stone, not as in less stuff is allowed), and Administration has to abide by the way the people vote.... unless kevan wants it off his wiki which is perfectly acceptable after all i believe the wiki is his property --Imthatguy 04:39, 7 July 2009 (BST)

ur dumb --Cyberbob 04:55, 7 July 2009 (BST)

That the best you can come up with?...... 'ur dumb'......... how pathetic that you have sunk to such a level--Imthatguy 05:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

but.....you are dumb so i dunno what you're on about? --Cyberbob 05:40, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Nubis that's ridiculous. If what was allowed and only what was allowed in the game was allowed on the wiki then i could say NIGGER all over the place because hey, you can do that in the game. Go undo my 2 vandalism cases then call me and we'll talk--xoxo 11:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

You're so bitter --in before bob.11:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

well if you would just stop being "so bitter" i wouldn't have to keep saying it now would i --Cyberbob 11:38, 7 July 2009 (BST)

i can't help that everything nubis did to me is in contradiction to the way he is acting of late...--xoxo 12:45, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Stop being an idiot. You can say Nigger. You can't spray paint Nigger. There is a difference. You can "say" all kinds of (text)underage rape shit, but does that mean it is appropriate here on the wiki? Please post child porn to prove your argument.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Ah see but can i say underage rape shit here? --xoxo 14:38, 7 July 2009 (BST)

No, because it Violates T.O.U. This server doesnt even allow IRC to host on it to avoid a number of issues. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:31, 7 July 2009 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Alim. Should these be pruned too Newbis? The image that started all this (this time) was a simple pictogram suggesting that fort dwellers were wankers... a sentiment that most wiki goers probably agree with. The problem with deleting everything sexual is that it would be an endless process. The bouncing Boobs gif in someones sig, the scantily clad zombie chick on my user page, the use of any vaguely sexual imagery including text? Do you make different levels of censorship apply in different areas? Its all going to get pretty damn confusing pretty damn quick. The game itself must have thousands of obscene names in it by now so just purging the wiki seems pointless. Of course real porn should be an absolute no-no but wander around in the actual game and tell me with a straight face that smut has no place here. --Honestmistake 09:34, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Smut has no place here.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:21, 7 July 2009 (BST)

If smut has no place here you will be banning a lot of groups and users whose characters are little more than dirty jokes or obscene descriptions. --Honestmistake 17:51, 7 July 2009 (BST)

This just in, Mistake misses the point. Again. Completely. Film at 11.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)

WAH WAH! They won't let me post my fucking porn on the wiki and now I have to wank it to underwear ads and pop ups crying and wishing I could touch a real girl. I love the stupid fucking argument that something like Cockburn is offensive because your retarded little 12 year old brain thinks anything that sounds dirty is porn, but when it is an actual picture then THAT'S FUCKING ART AND SHOULD BE SAVED!!1!one!!. God, you jackoffs are pathetic.-- #99 ^DCC 13:36, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Honest struck me as being pretty desperate for porn on that misconduct case of Nubis'. Good to see he hasn't changed (though literally nothing else about him has so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all) since then. --Cyberbob 13:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)

My point hasn't changed Bob (its called being consistent, you should try it with something other than trolling) What was deleted in the last case was not porn and what was deleted in this one wasn't either but its not misconduct to delete because the rules are so messed up that sysops have the power to over rule everyone else if they decide they don't like something.

Everyone knows that this rule was only intended to allow sysops a quick way to get rid of actual porn (you know the stuff that is actually pornographic) rather than stuff like asci art, risque pics and line drawings.--Honestmistake 17:51, 7 July 2009 (BST)

And what do you know, most of that doesn't have a place on the wiki. Fancy that.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

If that kind of stuff has no place on the wiki then I can expect to see a move to have SexualHarrisons sig sent for a mastectomy soon can I? Or how about the entire Dribbling Beavers group page? Maybe the Dead Bunnies? Hmm VPoD were pretty rude too and as for all those zombies "ramming banananahz".... well it just should not be tolerated, I mean there are children out there. --Honestmistake 18:43, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Classic HM argument, eh? "on noes if we remove this we should remove everything else because it makes sense in my mind!"

Porn check.

• Harrison's sig? Negative. Not even the "merest hint of aureole"
• Dribbling Beavers? Still no sign of graphic representations of the naked body. Nor any classical art for that matter.
• Dead Bunnies? Again, not a single tit or dick on the page
• Village People? Fuck man, where do you come up with this shit Honest?

There's no real problem with text, just pictures and the manipulation of text to create a nude body. Grow up honest.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:51, 7 July 2009 (BST)

• I was a member of the group... the wiki page is very tasteful... all the smut was in game, there was a fair bit of it but nothing compared to the various "Yiffers" out there.--Honestmistake 20:41, 7 July 2009 (BST)

There is just no point arguing with you on this. I don't consider the image you deleted to be porn and don't think many others do either but consider one of Nubis's statements at the start of this...

• "Again, this is a wiki about Urban Dead. There should be nothing sexual on here at all."

Yes he later mentions images but there are a hell of a lot of legitimate game related reasons to post zombie stripper type pics or crude phallic insults aimed at an opponents team, saying that the game does not support rude images is a pretty shitty argument as the game does not support any images at all (the bloody eye being an exception) Look again at those examples and tell me there is nothing that might fall into the category of sexual. --Honestmistake 20:36, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Sexual references in text? Yeah. Pornogrpahics? No. Not even the "classic art" kind. My definition of porn isn't the same as Nubis's, and his isn't even as strict as you're trying to paint it as. Seriously. Everyone needs to stop taking these weak ass interpretations of what someone says to try and justify their shity little jokes and grow the fuck up. The averge cock is six inches, now can we please move the fuck on from the dick related jokes?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:24, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Mistake, you have reached a new low of stupidity. Those first two lines up there can not be topped. Yes he later mentions images THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT IMAGES FROM THE START. I never said the names or text (except to form an image) was a problem because THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT IMAGES FROM THE START. I'm not offended by the name Dribbling Beavers but a picture of one (a VAGINA) would be over the line here because THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT IMAGES FROM THE START. Ok. I'm done. I no longer believe that you are capable of making any intelligent contribution to any discussion. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:59, 9 July 2009 (BST)

When the fuck did you ever believe that he was? Serious question. --Cyberbob 17:43, 9 July 2009 (BST)

I never really did, but like monkeys throwing shit on typewriters sometimes he popped out an interesting statement that actually applied to a discussion. Or maybe Nubis was more of an optimist than I am. I realize those days are over. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:28, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Lolz; you guys are just the funniest! --Honestmistake 09:16, 10 July 2009 (BST)

No, you didn't just try that one on for size. Chalking it up to some kind of glitch with your computer. --Cyberbob 11:25, 10 July 2009 (BST)

I eLove you so hard right now.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)

UDWiki:Think about the children, nuff said. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:58, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Just a point...the most elaborate court system on the planet (The U.S. Supreme Court) Hasn't been able to define what is "Pornography" in over eighty years of trying...The best they can come up with is Physical community standards and that when telecommunication crosses multiple communities the most restrictive must be used. Now since this is an international online community and the laws that govern the wiki are British, I'm not saying anything important other than good luck because anything that ends up qualifying as an offensive image is either going to end up being deleted by a sysop or reported to the host and then deleted regardless of what others may think about it. (Personal non-sysopy opinion follows) AScii drawings of Penis can be art but if you want to show them off, host them off the wiki, not all images that can be related to UD are suitable for UD and the wiki is not to be a substitute for an image host-server. 4chan is a much better place for this kind of crap folks..take it there. Also....The Game ya win yet? Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 11:58, 8 July 2009 (BST)

The UD wiki is going to be governed by real-world laws now? Ut-oh! --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 11:23, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Generic Header

I've just skimmed through the above discussion. Unless anyone's got any complains, I'll put up for voting the removal of the porn scheduled deletion.

At the same time MediaWiki:Uploadtext will be changed to include the following words:

Upload Text said:

Images judged to be pornographic will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued to the offending user.

So instead of an image being deleted on sight, it must first be judged to be vandalism on A/VB. It may be worth making porn an immediate ban.

Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  12:43, 16 July 2009 (BST)

The idea of deleting porn on sight is so that no one else has to see it, etc, and waiting for consensus is just destroying that. I do want the porn scheduled to go, in favour of something more cement, but I think it needs to be done with a definition of porn in the guidelines so that users don't have a fit like the last Nubis and SA case, and similarly so sysops will have a more objective basis when judging suspect images. --ϑϑℜ 12:48, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"Images that clearly show male or female genitalia will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued. Ambiguous images will be taken to A/VB" Linkthewindow  Talk  12:54, 16 July 2009 (BST)

That sounds good. --Cyberbob 12:58, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Should be "uploading inappropriate (eg. sexually explicit) images may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted as such without notice", IMO. It should be clear that risque does not automatically mean deletion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:00 16 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, that's good. --ϑϑℜ 13:01, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"Images that are inappropriate (eg. sexually explict) may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted on sight." << for the mediawiki upload text.

"Images that clearly show male or female genitalia will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued." << scheduled.

That should hopefully catch all obscene images that need to go as soon as they are seen and leave ambiguous images to a vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:05, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds fine to me, though it should certainly be the case that ambiguos images are not eligible for sysop KOS until the vote is done. --Honestmistake 13:08, 16 July 2009 (BST)

They wouldn't be anyway - they wouldn't be scheduled and vandalism is only removed once it's ruled to be vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:12, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Out and out porn should be KOS just as it is now. Borderline cases like askii art or tasteless nudity are not real porn though and should be subject to A/VB or even just a full deletion vote without a sysops ability to over rule a clear majority. The problem (as we all see) is that definitions of where that divide falls vary as much as is possible when dealing with a world wide audience. --Honestmistake 12:57, 16 July 2009 (BST)

How can you say they aren't real "porn" when they meet the criteria of visible genitalia? Just to cover the bases and have a fair definition there should be no nudity at all including "art". Yes, Malton may have museums, but that doesn't mean that every page about one needs a painting showing nipples or tits. That way there is no question about "is this porn?" Nipples, dicks, and vaginas are deleted onsight. That's pretty damn simple. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:06, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Because nipples are not genitalia and they are not porn. I have no problem with deleting porn but I do dislike the idea of deleting anything risque just because some people cannot distinguish between sexual obscenity and mere titillation. The whole "OMFG I can see nipple" thing is done and consensus says it should go so go it does. My concern would be definition creep, without something a bit clearer than we currently have we will have folk calling cleavage porn, naked silhouettes porn or even photo's of inanimate objects porn... Many such images will be inappropriate and should go, that discussion should be taken by a consensus rather than a single person. We obviously have different views on what is acceptable, hell i think every single member of the sysop team has different views, what I am saying is that in cases where one or more people think it is borderline then no one person should be able to decide. --Honestmistake 15:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Shall porn be a 24h ban (in the way arbies escalations work,) or a mere warning? Obviously porn is different to regular vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I would say only a warning for the ambiguous stuff (esp if it really was a close called thing) but all the obvious stuff should go straight to a 24 hour ban and/or single escalation. --Honestmistake 13:05, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Single escalation for both. --ϑϑℜ 13:12, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism is vandalism, it gets an escalation (except for the 3 edit rule) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:19 16 July 2009 (BST)

what boxy said pretty much --Cyberbob 13:22, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"Images that clearly show male or female genitalia will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued." Are you guys retarded? This little line was the crux of the whole argument last time with the image with the nipples "almost" covered by some sort of power tool vs. the Statue of David. When we argued that that there was a clear difference in intent and usage the old IF YOU BAN THIS THEN WHAT'S NEXT? crew came in. You can't have a blanket statement like that and call it a reworking. I am not being prude about this. It's just the only fair way to do it. You want a group with nudity in your logo? Host it somewhere else. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:06, 16 July 2009 (BST)

What would you propose in terms of a useable guideline? --Cyberbob 15:18, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Nipples are not part of human genitalia... Full on frontal nudity (even partial if it shows Nipples) should be included in the definition for clarity. --Honestmistake 15:28, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"Photographic depictions of human genitalia will be deleted on sight." That's as close as I can get without including the word "porn." Linkthewindow  Talk  01:33, 17 July 2009 (BST)