The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

10 Pages V « < 4 5 6 7 8 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Boy Scouts are for spanking?, More from Wales talk
Achromatic
post Fri 25th January 2008, 3:52am
Post #101


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun 16th Dec 2007, 10:32pm
From: Washington State
Member No.: 4,185

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 24th January 2008, 2:20pm) *

Of course, WAS 4.250 is still deranged:

QUOTE
This is the sort of nonsense that WR was trying to create in the first place. Child actors, faces in a crowd, etc. Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, WAS -- this wasn't about WR creating anything. This was about WR appropriately reacting to an abomination.
...

It's quite simple. WAS 4.250 apparently disagrees. Probably too much Jimbo-juice at the last meet-up.

Greg


WAS isn't even disagreeing, as such, he's trying to stir the BADSITES cavalry into action. It wasn't anything short of intentional disingenuity as to what the concerns were, only "Look out, the WR trolls think you shouldn't be free!" Several responses to him explaining the problem were only met with more "THE TROLLS! THE TROLLS!"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Fri 25th January 2008, 8:07am
Post #102


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(privatemusings @ Fri 25th January 2008, 3:41am) *

I thought I'd echo here Greg's comments over at wikback - that some good has come of our efforts, which is to be welcomed.


Indeed. Mr 'Spankart' has been very busy removing things last night.

http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?tit...&action=history

Well done WR.

[Edit update]

Checking here:

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Category:CC-BY_images

it seems like all the really offending images (i.e. pictures of children) are gone, so left with a rather mild, though still rather sick, spanking site. Thanks to Greg for his efforts (note some of the discussion on Jimbo's page appears to have been a sock, at least according to Wikipedia). Residual issues:

1. The cub-spanking picture is still there. Has to go.

2. Wales has not apologised. Indeed, he has not commented at all.

3. Likewise, the role of WR has not been recognised in this, apart from some people calling us 'trolls'.

4. There remains a spanking site on Wikia, next door as it were to sections used by children (such as the Thomas the Tank Engine and other 'kiddie' parts. I'm not comfortable with this, but then this is an internet issue. For example, LiveJournal used by kids (and I use it for discussion of medieval Latin, it is a good site), but also has sections devoted to heroin abuse, zoophilia, coprophilia, paedophilia &c.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 25th January 2008, 9:08am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnA
post Fri 25th January 2008, 9:46am
Post #103


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



I think those naughty people at Wikia deserve a good hard spanking and I nominate Taxwoman to administer it (and myself as observer to see that justice is done happy.gif )
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Fri 25th January 2008, 2:16pm
Post #104


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



With regard to my comment on the appropriate response being an open debate at Wikipedia, I am pleased to see that some have raised a mature response to the issue. Sometimes we should remember that the majority of people on Wikipedia are sane human beings. Let's see whether Wikipedia can cope, or whether the more deranged thinkers hold the fort.

I would have thought it at least worth a mention on the Village Pump.

QUOTE

I'd like to throw this out here for discussion. First off, thank you Jimbo for deleting the image. Your willingness to step in is appreciated. I'd like to suggest as a project, we reexamine our licensing policy concerning identifiable images of persons under 18. (Identifiable means that it is zoomed in enough on a person's face that you could recognize that person if you saw them on the street.) We really ought to either permit these images to be licensed under a more restrictive licensing scheme that prohibits sexually explicit reuse OR we need to require parental informed consent to be logged with OTRS. I recognize that the former probably isn't going to happen, but the latter definitely should. --B (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the sort of nonsense that WR was trying to create in the first place. Child actors, faces in a crowd, etc. Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

At issue is NOT the rights of the contributor. In every case, Scouters who have contributed these photos are doing so with the willingness that their contributions be used or adapted, commercial or otherwise, etc. The rights of the contributor aren't an issue. It's about the rights of the children depicted in the photo. Either (a) we need to protect their rights or (b ) we need to make sure that their parents have given informed consent to the use of the photo. Neither the photographer nor Wikipedia has the authority to permit you to use a photo of someone else's child for sexually explicit purposes. That's a legal fact of life and we need to spell that out somewhere. Informed parental consent is the direction I'm leaning. --B (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Every comment you have made in this thread, WAS 4.250, seems to be an effort in making people appear draconian for demanding curtailing of contributor rights. You have invoked spurious appeals to emotion, "Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere." and such, in an effort to derail the discussion from what it was about - that there are, ethically, morally and legally, more peoples rights involved than that of the contributor. Personality and likeness rights - even if, from all interpretations of your comments - you have decided that such rights are inherently trumped by your rights - certainly an interesting approach to take. Even when it has been repeatedly explained that the issue is the right of an unintended/potentially unwilling subject to be depicted in a manner of their choosing, your responses have been predominantly along the lines of "ZOMG, the WR trolls are hounding down the GFDL! Slavers!", seemingly deciding instead that it's not the message that's important (or not), but the messenger. Achromatic (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)



WAS: that was the best framing of this simple point "Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything." and all CC sites need to write that in blood on every submit key. There is a big difference between being edited mercilessly and that. Perhaps I'd phrase it more:

QUOTE

Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything that might be worse than you could ever imagine.


This post has been edited by dogbiscuit: Fri 25th January 2008, 2:19pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 25th January 2008, 3:47pm
Post #105


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(privatemusings @ Thu 24th January 2008, 10:41pm) *

I've asked them to consider just closing the wiki - which I hope will happen as soon as possible - as well as editing the actual page itself, I've emailed Jimbo, Angela, Sannse and the NSPCC (a child protection charity) in the UK the following message;

QUOTE(email from PM a few hours ago)

Hello,

I'm writing to you in the hope that I might solicit some advice ...

* I do not have sufficient faith in the ability of the community to police itself through the available 'back channels'

I'd really appreciate any advice you may be able to offer, and have copied this mail to 'Sannse' who is a Wikia representative who has been very helpful in discussing these issues,

best regards,
PM.



Wow, privatemusings! I wish that I had the ability to contain my outrage and write a civil, thoughtful, polite-but-firm missive such as yours above. Kudos to you. We'd make a good team -- I'd be the "crazy-he-just-might-crack-this-time" one who gets the common people fired up, and you'd be the "now-speak-with-my-attorney-to-iron-out-the-details" guy who makes sure the right thing actually gets done.

biggrin.gif

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 25th January 2008, 3:58pm
Post #106


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 25th January 2008, 9:16am) *

...we should remember that the majority of people on Wikipedia are sane human beings...
QUOTE

Every comment you have made in this thread, WAS 4.250, seems to be an effort in making people appear draconian for demanding curtailing of contributor rights. You have invoked spurious appeals to emotion, "Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere." and such, in an effort to derail the discussion from what it was about - that there are, ethically, morally and legally, more peoples rights involved than that of the contributor. Personality and likeness rights - even if, from all interpretations of your comments - you have decided that such rights are inherently trumped by your rights - certainly an interesting approach to take. Even when it has been repeatedly explained that the issue is the right of an unintended/potentially unwilling subject to be depicted in a manner of their choosing, your responses have been predominantly along the lines of "ZOMG, the WR trolls are hounding down the GFDL! Slavers!", seemingly deciding instead that it's not the message that's important (or not), but the messenger. Achromatic (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)




Wow, Achromatic! You rebutted WAS 4.250 in about the best possible, most intelligently thoughtful way I could have imagined.

I am truly inspired how people have stepped up and hit home runs on this issue.

One didn't think you'd have to dream up crazy scenarios to understand the truly deranged interpretation of GFDL "rights" that exist within some Wikipediot minds. Example, I wonder how WAS 4.250 would feel if someone took a headshot picture of a security guard at the Pentagon, released it under the GFDL, then a terrorist took that image to create a fake ID, also released under the GFDL, that would then be printed and used by a suicide bomber to gain access to the Pentagon building?

I can see WAS 4.250's response, "While the actions of the bomber are to be regretted, nothing about the free dissemination and modification of that image violated any laws that I see, and therefore, Wikipedia is AWESOME."

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Fri 25th January 2008, 4:16pm
Post #107


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 25th January 2008, 9:16am) *

With regard to my comment on the appropriate response being an open debate at Wikipedia, I am pleased to see that some have raised a mature response to the issue. Sometimes we should remember that the majority of people on Wikipedia are sane human beings. Let's see whether Wikipedia can cope, or whether the more deranged thinkers hold the fort.


It would be preferable to have a dialog between WMF and responsible actors outside of WP. The "community" has demonstrated that it is incapable of appropriate editorial restraint. Nothing is ever settled within the WP "community." Even if the do the right thing those opposed to restraint will only regroup and return to reimpose irresponsible content.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Fri 25th January 2008, 6:47pm
Post #108


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 25th January 2008, 4:16pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 25th January 2008, 9:16am) *

With regard to my comment on the appropriate response being an open debate at Wikipedia, I am pleased to see that some have raised a mature response to the issue. Sometimes we should remember that the majority of people on Wikipedia are sane human beings. Let's see whether Wikipedia can cope, or whether the more deranged thinkers hold the fort.


It would be preferable to have a dialog between WMF and responsible actors outside of WP. The "community" has demonstrated that it is incapable of appropriate editorial restraint. Nothing is every settled within the WP "community." Even if the do the right thing those opposed to restraint will only regroup and return to reimpose irresponsible content.


Agree entirely.

This hasn't played out yet. Part of the interest is that They know they are being watched, and surprisingly perhaps, have recognised that there is a real issue and have acted in a responsible manner. For example, the Cabal stayed out of it, rather than, hey guys, Incoming, man the barricades.

There is something else that has happened. WR may still be labelled as a bunch of fruit cakes, but the message has been acknowledged this time. To be fair(!) the subject was raised there first, but the pressure came from here. It is useful because it is harder to reconcile WR == BADSITE.

Small steps in the right direction. Give credit where it is due - and then aim higher.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
privatemusings
post Fri 25th January 2008, 10:43pm
Post #109


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat 29th Dec 2007, 4:51pm
Member No.: 4,306

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



thanks for your comment, Greg! - I think your moving fast and hard on this was a good thing too - and to be honest, the fact that Jimbo and Wikia reacted fairly quickly (and will hopefully go further....) seems to show that they agree with you too.... good on us!

The NSPCC replied, and recommended I also email the UK's Internet Watch Foundation which I have done - and I've copied sannse in on that too.

we'll see what happens....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 26th January 2008, 3:11am
Post #110


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



It would appear that our celebration of dramatic progress may have been premature. Some of the "gotta have our child abuse art, since it's not real kids" proponents are holding their ground.

I can't wait to see the screen shots of Verizon "blowout sale" adverts next to the room full of Cub Scouts getting beaten red to a state of tears. That should be really positive for Jimbo's revenue stream.

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Sat 26th January 2008, 4:08am
Post #111


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



This is the nexus of the whole thing Greg. The grand flaw in the dippy dreamer ideology exposed large. Having removed the photographs, the "Freedom" fruitcakes won't want to compromise any further and remove the clearly distasteful drawings. They'll scream censorship and make emotive points drawn from some high school debate.

But the Jimbos of this world also want to make money, lots of it. And though he's not interested in scruples or social responsibility (the guy set up Bomis babes for chrissake), a lot of people are. He's caught in the middle where he has to compromise or lose money.

Either be known for running a site carrying sketches of children being abused amidst a host of gratuitous sado-masochistic imagery, or face reality like everyone else and realize that you are part of society. Either take responsibility to protect the vulnerable in society, or tolerate abuse.

This is why Libertarians like DanTobias end up talking out of their back sides.

When reality bites, they have no answer.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amarkov
post Sat 26th January 2008, 7:49am
Post #112


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:02am
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



You are confusing libertarianism with Objectivism. Libertarianism in this context only means that you have no right to make Jimbo take down the site. Which you don't. Making a judgement that the site shouldn't be taken down is not the libertarian view (that social responsibility shouldn't be enforced by law), it's the Objectivist view (that social responsibility is at best unnecessary, at worst immoral).

Sorry that I'm touchy about this, but I'm pretty libertarian myself, and I certainly don't defend this.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 26th January 2008, 9:00am
Post #113


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



After being blocked after 4 minutes of discussion on the Wikia IRC channel, I've just spent the last 3 hours making a PowerPoint presentation that easily has the potential to go uber-viral (1,000,000 e-mails in 48 hours) and could be presented "Giano style" on YouTube.

I have sent it privately to two members of this board whom I trust for critique.

It is not a legal threat of any kind, but it will cripple Wikia where it counts -- at the ad dollar source.

Wikia should be scared. Very scared.

I have a board meeting all morning Saturday. I may be communicating with America on Saturday afternoon. One million moms and dads should be no problem by Monday afternoon.

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 26th January 2008, 9:21am
Post #114


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 26th January 2008, 9:00am) *

After being blocked after 4 minutes of discussion on the Wikia IRC channel, I've just spent the last 3 hours making a PowerPoint presentation that easily has the potential to go uber-viral (1,000,000 e-mails in 48 hours) and could be presented "Giano style" on YouTube.

I have sent it privately to two members of this board whom I trust for critique.

It is not a legal threat of any kind, but it will cripple Wikia where it counts -- at the ad dollar source.

Wikia should be scared. Very scared.

I have a board meeting all morning Saturday. I may be communicating with America on Saturday afternoon. One million moms and dads should be no problem by Monday afternoon.

Greg


This is all going to be v interesting. Hope YouTube doesn't take it down (but that would be very telling, wouldn't it)

[edit] just tried to connect to the SA server and it is temporarily down, hmm. Note it was up just after Greg posted his message up. Went down 10 minutes later.

[edit] no, it's back up. Must have been 'glitch'. Good, because I was looking forward to this afternoon.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 26th January 2008, 9:48am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Chris Croy
post Sat 26th January 2008, 1:18pm
Post #115


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu 7th Jun 2007, 6:57pm
Member No.: 1,650

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This whole brouhaha (I'm with the AP writer. The story has no legs) reminds me of when I asked a photographer if I could add some of his photographs to Wikipedia. It went something like this

"You should really read the GFDL or CC-BY for yourself, but in essence you agree to let anyone anywhere use your photographs in any way they see fit, including commercially, as long as they abide by the terms of the license."
"Including NAMBLA?"
"Yes. Including NAMBLA."

He never emailed me back.

The GFDL: Requiring you to get permission on behalf of NAMBLA since 2000.

This post has been edited by Chris Croy: Sat 26th January 2008, 1:19pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 26th January 2008, 1:22pm
Post #116


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Chris Croy @ Sat 26th January 2008, 8:18am) *

This whole brouhaha (I'm with the AP writer. The story has no legs) reminds me of when I asked a photographer if I could add some of his photographs to Wikipedia. It went something like this

"You should really read the GFDL or CC-BY for yourself, but in essence you agree to let anyone anywhere use your photographs in any way they see fit, including commercially, as long as they abide by the terms of the license."
"Including NAMBLA?"
"Yes. Including NAMBLA."

He never emailed me back.

The GFDL: Requiring you to get permission on behalf of NAMBLA since 2000.


This isn't a licensing issue, Chris.

It is an issue of whether moms and dads want to shop with Verizon, Microsoft, and Pizza Hut if they are seen to not care about a site that promotes an environment that endorses senseless violence against children for the prurient joy of some sick adults.

I don't care if the story never sees the mainstream media. E-mail and YouTube did just fine communicating Tay Zonday without the mainstream media.

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 26th January 2008, 1:41pm
Post #117


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Chris Croy @ Sat 26th January 2008, 1:18pm) *

This whole brouhaha (I'm with the AP writer. The story has no legs) reminds me of when I asked a photographer if I could add some of his photographs to Wikipedia. It went something like this

"You should really read the GFDL or CC-BY for yourself, but in essence you agree to let anyone anywhere use your photographs in any way they see fit, including commercially, as long as they abide by the terms of the license."
"Including NAMBLA?"
"Yes. Including NAMBLA."

He never emailed me back.

The GFDL: Requiring you to get permission on behalf of NAMBLA since 2000.


Hmm I'm with Greg here. There's a principle in Financial Services called 'Widows and Orphans'. Means: if you sell a risky product and a widow or orphan sues you, you are going to have to give their money back, even if the small print explains the risk, and even if you really did explain the risk. People react in a certain way to pictures of widows and orphans being evicted from their homes, for whatever reason.

Same principle here. OK the dim-witted parent who submitted the picture of their pretty 3 year old daughter in the bath to a photo-site should really have known that was stupid, and probably, somewhere, the implication was explained to them, perhaps in the bit you click on that says 'accept conditions' and won't let you go on until you have ticked it. Doesn't matter. A family picture ends up on a pervert site. End of story. Or rather, beginning of.

This story has any number of angles. Could be something in the Daily Mail about the dangers of photo sites. Could be something about 'Thomas the Tank Engine' supporting paedo websites. Any angle you like. Let's see anyway.

I shall certainly link the story from my site, which gets plenty of hits.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 26th January 2008, 2:34pm
Post #118


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Spankart himself now comments on WR:

QUOTE
Well, I see that it may look like we've given in to a bunch of outside critics who don't like our open discussion of topics such as spanking art, child spanking or spanking fetishism (or who don't like wikis, Wikipedia or Wikia in general), and who just rant, troll and make ridiculous and absurd accusations. From a strictly legal point of view, the new restrictive rule was not necessary. I never ever saw a single page in this wiki on which pedophilia, violence or child abuse was condoned or encouraged. Likewise, I never ever saw a page in this wiki on which the personality rights of a child were violated - though I'm not a lawyer, and you never know how a court would decide.
Anyway, as you may know, people who did not like our wiki have appealed to Wikia to shut it down completely, and I was privately contacted by Wikia staff the next day after they had discussed the issue in the team. Our modified image use policy is a compromize that will allow us to continue the wiki. For me, the solution is acceptable because I think the contemporary child photos were not of such great importance to this wiki - they can be replaced by drawings, paintings and vintage photos. If there is a particular photo you'd like me to restore, I can pixelate the face with Photoshop. We still have 1,184 images after the deletion of 74 contemporary child photos. And of course, the wiki is still and will always be "anybody can edit". Spankart 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Spankart"


1. Having researched the issue, there is a big grey area around 'child erotica' i.e. stuff that is not explicent but obviously 'prurient'. This is why Yahoo and others shut down their previous website.

2. Still misses the point that large corporate advertisers have banners appearing on a 'child erotica' site.

QUOTE
I believe that IRS Form 1023‎ is engaging in behavior disruptive to this site and is becoming a serious problem. Aside from being clearly hostile to the basic premise of the Spanking Art Wikia, GFDL and Wikia in general he has attacked and insulted Roguebfl‎ on at least two occasions. I'd like to suggest an immediate and permanent block on this user to avoid an escalation of the present situation. Ciao, Blackshade9 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
I am generally not a friend of blocking disruptive users, but I agree in this case a block may be right, for the reasons you give. However I limited the block to two weeks. Spankart 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Spanking_Art:Admin_requests"


Blackshade is the 'artist' who produced the drawings on the 'panty shot' page

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Panty_shot

This is a page devoted to pictures of little girls with their skirts blown in the air, showing their panties.

His user page is here:

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/User:Blackshade9

which proudly displays a 10-year old girl showing her well-and-truly spanked bottom. Right. This is the 'open discussion of issues related to spanking' bit, is it?


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 26th January 2008, 2:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Sat 26th January 2008, 2:55pm
Post #119


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



It appears that Spanking Art has been closed down. The link from the main page is now dead.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 26th January 2008, 2:57pm
Post #120


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 26th January 2008, 2:55pm) *

It appears that Spanking Art has been closed down. The link from the main page is now dead.


No, still there. It went dead a few minutes ago (as well as earlier this morning). Don't know if this connected with the current 'issue' or not.

However logging in is not possible any more.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 26th January 2008, 2:58pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

10 Pages V « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th 8 14, 10:44am