• Strong Delete Just because parents refuse to supervise their kids, that does not mean it is our job to do so. The Internet (or Wikipedia) is no more an appropriate baby-sitter than is television. -NickGorton 05:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would my user page then be up for deletion since in it I describe that I am gay? There are many people who feel that discussion of LGBT issues is indecent and inappropriate for minors. -NickGorton 06:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick, you seem to be confusing two issues: one, that the discussion of LGBT issues should not be suppressed (I agree), and two, that no one should be allowed to suggest that discussion of LGBT should be suppressed (I do not agree). The problem here is that in the name of "free speech" and "anticensorship", some seem to feel that we should not allow those with viewpoints that we don't approve of to speak freely and that we should censor those viewpoints! Grace Note 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not a consensus so I can't say for sure, but my guess would be since there is nothing on Wikipedia which supports considering LGBT indecent, and Florida Law doesn't prohibit it, it would not be indecent. Agriculture 06:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: moved long block quote and comment to talk page. Please revert if you think it belonged here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you join the project to help us come up with a good standard, rather than deleting it because you think there should be no standard. I quote Florida Title XLVI Chapter 847 Section 11, see below in appropriate section. This worries me, if Wikipedia (being hosted in Florida) isn't careful, it could be shutdown, the project in question is attempting to find a standard through consensus to prevent this law from shutting Wikipedia down. Please try to put away your personal bias for a moment and instead of attacking this effort, join it. Agriculture 06:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

..deleting it because you think there should be no standard. It's not the case that there is no standard. The standard used at the moment to determine what goes into Wikipedia are the standards of the WIkipedia community - every time someone edits an article, votes in VfD, or comments on a talk page that standard is used, refined, and strengthened, in a way akin to the Common Law legal system. No, it's not perfect, and variation is inevitable, but overall it works pretty well and the majority of users are happy with it. These same users - as the voting here shows - do not wish it to be superceded by some explicitly-written policy document, formulated according to a small group's personal morals and forever surrounded by argument and ill-feeling (as this debate has shown it would be). Essentially, the feeling is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", along with a healthy dose of anti-censorship instincts. PeteVerdon 09:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:NOT. --Idont Havaname 06:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:NOT. Radiant_>|< 15:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete Like the pharaohs, they will wipe out facts of history because it offends their sensibilities. CanadianCaesar 06:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Your POV seems to be clouding your abilities to judge the situation. Is the WikiProject (or any WikiProject for that matter) an exclusive club? Then whose to say the project won't support your "sensibilities"? It's a project for helping to bring Wikipedia in line with Florida Law, and to help determine if the current standards are good enough. How does it hurt to have a place to discuss this? How does censoring a group working to help Wikipedia help anyone? You're making judgements about the characters of a new group with completely open membership. Agriculture 06:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for making legal threats. Zoe 06:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no legal threat. None of us are threating legal action, we're pointing out existing law which Wikipedia has demanded we follow. We're seeking to bring things into good standing with law not to attempt to sue Wikipedia. It isn't a legal threat to point out that Wikipedia needs to follow criminal law, and then attempt to help it do so. Agriculture 06:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fact of the Day: I saw penises and vaginas in Health class, which is funded by the government, which Florida is part of. Oh shit, they gotta shut themselves down. Flood it with Tubgirl images and Delete. -- A Link to the Past 06:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is it so hard for people who claim to be against censorship to have an open mind? Photos of Penises and Vaginas are not indecent, and no one is claiming they are. The point is that we need to determine what violates the law and where the standard should be, not to try to delete everything on Wikipedia. Join us, share your views in a constructive manner and help us figure it out. Agriculture 06:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are used for educational purposes. Shut up, kthx. And the images you reference, outside of Autofellatio, are not linked to any page and added by the same person, indicating that they should be deleted for unneeded images, but not indecency. We point out that this site is not censored for minors, and these images are used for educational purposes, nothing else. -- A Link to the Past 06:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • I lodge formal protest at your continued rudeness. Used for educational or otherwise, Florida Law clearly states intent has no bearing. This is why this project is important, because the law says intent is not a valid defense. Agriculture 06:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Freaking prudes, get out of my country! Can't I go one day without seeing you dolts? The government funds educational programs which provide nudity to the children for educational purposes. We do the exact same thing, and we're Nazi baby raping Satanists. Go back to WP:PRUDE, kthxbai. -- A Link to the Past 06:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not prudish to follow the law. Furthermore I note that your personal attack is a violation of Wikipedia Policy, and I encourage you to stop making them before I must ask a moderator to help mediate this. Agriculture 06:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I apologize for pointing out the obviouse fact that you are a prude, but when you do not even acknowledge that I pointed out that the GOVERNMENT (that you seem to worship above all else) has allowed nudity to be exposed to the eyes of children as young as 12. So, until you stop avoiding the argument at hand, you're a prude. -- A Link to the Past 06:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
              • No actually that isn't true, and you did more than call me a prude as you will note. I have no problem with nudity, and the state of Florida appears not to have a problem with it either. It has a problem with hardcore pornography, which is very different from nudity. Please read the full text of the article in question and the law before responding, as I think it will aid you in your understanding. Agriculture 06:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • So, wait. Schools use images depicting breasts, vaginas, penises and even sex, and that makes it educational. But when it's something not funded by the government that's doing nothing different, it's some kind of evil act. Perhaps - work with me here - Florida would care about the doings of Wikipedia because it's not a governmental-funded organization like the school system is? -- A Link to the Past 07:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Look, I'm trying to work with you here, but you aren't even reading my comments. Let me try this as clearly as possible
                    1. Penises, Vaginas, Breasts not hardcore pornography, easily decent in both schools and Wikipedia.
                    2. Images of Explicit Sexual Acts such as intercourse or other similar things possibly hardcore pornography and possibly indecent in both schools and Wikipedia.
                    3. More time and discussion required as to exactly how to classify and how to come into line with law, thus purpose of the project. Agriculture 07:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia autofellates you! Delete creation scientists, prudes and jesus freaks for great justice. Comrade Raul654 said it best. Comrade Raul654, we sallute you! Vodka! Da! Project2501a 06:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT — Linnwood 06:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say that Wikipedia is not something which follows Florida Law, or that Wikipedia is not for encouraging discussions to form a consensus? Agriculture 06:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors — Linnwood 07:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does it say you have to respond to every vote? Zoe 06:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • I feel the noted reasons for the vote are invalid and the user is not informed of the facts, I am trying to help this discussion by spending time talking about it. Talking and discussing is not prohibited. Agriculture 06:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are, in fact, not spreading facts, but falsehoods. Nothing on Wikipedia can be shown to be obscene under the standards laid down by the Supreme Court, to wit - that which appeals only "to a prurient interest," shows "patently offensive sexual conduct" and "lacks serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value." Clearly, the photo in question in the IFD has serious scientific value in the context of autofellatio, showing that the act is indeed physically possible by humans. There is nothing patently offensive about autofellatio, nor can the photo be shown to appeal only to prurient interests. It is an encyclopedic photo which belongs in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 07:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are perhaps right that the image in question is valid, but there is a truly real question to be raised. Does that truly have scientific value? Maybe, maybe not. No current standard exists, a large part of the purpose of the WikiProject is to establish this standard. There is no falsehood spread, only Wikipedia Guidelines, Florida Law, Wikipedia Standards, and a place to discuss and find consensus. Agriculture 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 07:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The key phrase in all this is "lacks serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value". Wikipedia continuously flushes out material that isn't encyclopedic. Anything that adds significantly to an article is of literary value, which protects Wikipedia under the Miller Test for obscenity. As for the Wikiproject, I don't mind having watchdog groups around, so I vote keep, but what they should be watching for are images which can't ever have a place in an encyclopedia and nominating them at IFD. --Titoxd 08:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this project can never be NPOV. I smell WP:Point; would you be happy if the servers were moved out of Florida? Lectonar 08:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Kill it with fire --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're all out of fire, will Weapons of Mass Destruction do? :D Project2501a 09:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No; then we would be in danger of being invaded Lectonar

Thats not how it works actually. You should read the article on Iraq then the one on North Korea. They are both pretty good. ::::

• Sorry for the above off topic rambling I vote delete "Decency" reeks of POV. ::::
• Strong Delete - A forum for discussion of policies or other forms of free speech obviously have no place on Wikipedia. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Agriculture 08:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot "truth is fiction" and "porn is art". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - based on the belief that letting this project die a natural death after being defeated in anything it attempts is more productive and less divisive than blowing it up into a gigantic VfD debate which invites glorious martyrdom for the Defenders of All That Is Good And Decent In The World, Including Fluffy Bunnies (tm). FCYTravis 08:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP--MONGO 08:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia does not need it's own misguided version of the PTC. Gateman1997 08:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Consider the effect of this policy on users uploading material, which maybe is legal, legitimate etc..., they may be intimidated by the scope, complexity and process involved in moderation. Digital Thief 08:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep however misguided. They need a working definition of 'decency' before I could really comment. I believe in (almost) total free speech (which is more important than how many penis pics we can cram into autofellatio), but free-speech needs to cut both ways. Shall we censor the prudes as they burn the flag of the first amendment? Lord, save us from the tyranny of liberals! An important exploration of the borders of Wikipedia:Profanity and 'WP not censored' could be made here. --Doc (?) 08:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply don't believe that the aims of this project have merit consistent with the aims of Wikipedia, and if I were to vote 'keep' on things simply for the purposes of free speech, I would have to approve WP: List of times people have sneezed in the Pokemon cartoon. Which, by the way, no one should go and create. Thank you. A. J. Luxton 10:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Scientific images are alright, however why have a porno photo of sexual acts when a illustration would do just fine? For the user below, this Wikiproject helps to deal with those images. Banes 08:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the user above: as far as I understand it, this vote is about the Wikiproject, not the images Lectonar 08:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't feed the trolls, nothing to see here, move along please. Pilatus 08:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And ban the originator of the project for his penis-waving invocation of Florida law. Pilatus 15:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People are free to take the matter to Wikipedia Policies if they feel the need to do so. Rama 08:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reasons listed above in response to User: Doc glasgow. --A. J. Luxton 09:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I understand that the proposers of this project are acting in good faith, but I think they're sadly misguided. Wikipedia is supposed to be a compendium of human knowledge, and the fact that some of that knowledge makes some people uncomfortable does not mean it shouldn't be included. Nobody should be able to control what others can and can't see here, provided it's well-written factual information, regardless of the subject. "Think of the children!!1!" is something of a smokescreen; the world at large isn't padded, brightly-coloured and child-safe, neither is the Web, neither is Wikipedia - that's what parents are for. In any case, I think the idea that children will somehow be damaged by accidently seeing an article on some bizarre sexual practice is false - in my (admittedly limited) experience they're more likely to fail to understand what's being described, be bored and go somewhere else, or find the whole thing screamingly funny. But that's another debate that shouldn't be cluttering up this page. Finally, whether it's actually the case or not, this project have done themselves no favours by choosing a name that sounds like yet another of the rabid Christian-fundamentalist censorship groups that seem to be popping up all over the US these days. It should be deleted, but in a civil manner. PeteVerdon 09:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and is edited from outside Florida too. If Wikipedians want to protect the wee 'uns, they can do it as private persons. — JIP | Talk 09:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the debates around this "project" could be fun, I think it is just not worth keeping. Also, while there are - in my opinion - points that could be debated about such images, most certainly WP will not censor itself just because parents hold funny ideas about what their children should see or not, and then expect other people to do their job for them. That is not even worth debating about. -- AlexR 09:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Allow those concenred with the minuteae (sp) of Florida Law to discuss possible violations and take actions within the 'pedia framework. If they or their actions show that being located n Florida is a major hazard, we'll have to move the 'peia somewhere(s) else. (Distribution is probably going to happen anyway.) Rich Farmbrough 09:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This whole tyranny of the "shove potentially offensive material in their faces" school of thought is really extreme, to take it to the level of VfDing a project meant to counter that. I don't know how much I like the idea of the project, but I do think we need to make certain articles a bit less bluntly offensive to the vast majority of the world's population. There's a fair balance between prudishness and offensiveness we can find that will satisfy most people. I figure having a project like this might help even things out. Everyking 10:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If Wikipedia truly was an immoral and illegal hellbin of indecency, then the state of Florida would have already raised issue. Foppish troublemaking. And, my shaky grip of geography notwithstanding, isn't Florida in the United States of America, which has a Supreme Court holding the view that work containing potentially explicit images is only obscene if when "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"? If this this page remains, then the terrorists have already won. Proto t c 10:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't the "terrorists" in that phrase usually refer to anyone whom the Bush government disagrees with? — JIP | Talk 10:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. POV pushing clubs shouldn't be allowed whatsoever. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This sort of project is probably acceptable for userspace where extreme POV is tolerated. Userfy if anyone is willing to take it in. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the comments further, I have to agree with Geogre (I always agree with Geogre's keep votes) and Scimitar. I also find Everyking's argument reasonable. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete See below -Harmil 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the page in question:

Wikiproject Wikipedians for Decency was started [...] to coordinate and promote standards of decency on Wikipedia. This project is intended to coordinate efforts to bring articles to appropriate standards of decency [...] Additionally since relevant sections of Florida Law have been located [...]

This makes it quite clear that the goal is to impose a POV on Wikipedia, and that the laws of Florida are a secondary concern. A project which set as its goal the investigation of state, federal and international law on Wikipedia would be welcome, but this is not that project. -Harmil 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. 1. censoring the (perceived) censors is ... inconsistent? ironic? 2. driving people who support this underground and removing a central point for debate will accomplish precisely nothing. 3. I believe that there should be some standard of decency - mind you, the particular standard I'm likely to argue for is very permissive, so it will probably upset many Wikipedians for Decency, but it is not all-permissive (just my two cents: explicit images should be included but only when they actually make a significant contribution to an article; also nudes and body parts are generally ok). I think both sides are overreacting. ObsidianOrder 11:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. The key issue here is not censorship, but the policies this project runs afoul of: Neutral point of view, No legal threats, and Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The stated goal of the project is to "promote standards of decency" (read: promote a point of view); it is insinuated that Wikipedia or its editors are in violation of Florida law; if allowed to proceed, the project may have a chilling effect. In addition, it seems likely to encourage bad faith editing; indeed, it already appears poised for a witch hunt of some kind. [1]
2. Refusing to accept a project of this nature may help to limit disruption by its members.
3. I agree. However, in my opinion, it's only necessary to confine "indecent" material to the specific articles where it must be addressed. If someone looks up a "questionable" topic, they should find all the information Wikipedia has available, including relevant images. Such a standard can be upheld without the oversight of an unpopular project.

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 12:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if there are problems with the issue of explicit images (which there may well be), then they should be dealt with in the same way as any other policy issue. A Wikiproject is not the way to go about it. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• keep I'm sure someon can respond by creating a wikiproject for lack of censorship and I like to be able to keep track of the sides.Geni 11:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See EveryKing's comments --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As above, not censored for minors. Institutions such as schools and colleges have filtering software on their proxy servers which will automagickally block any pages they deem uncouth based on content, and parents should have more sense than to bollock their kid if they are reading encyclopaedia articles on body parts and the amazing array of things one can do with them. This is a non-issue that is being made a problem. --Veratien 12:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on principle. Of all possible avenues for discussion, VfD is probably the least productive—though it's the most productive in terms of guaranteeing input. Refuse to vote on merits of the project. Not in bad faith, whether it's fundamentally compatible with Wikipedia obviously disputed → not VfD's business yet. Polls are evil. JRM · Talk 12:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP - This vfd is an attempt to silence. Those discussing on this page have no Admin authority or other powers. The page was simply created because Jimbo Wales believed that File:Autofellatio 2.jpg was not a vision for Wiki and we agreed and wanted to use the powers of persuasion to change. --Noitall 12:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the fact that Jimbo Wales dislikes the autofellatio image is not really relevant. Jimbo is just another editor, and while his opinion is interesting Wikipedia is not a dictatorship or Jimbo's private fiefdom. --Ngb 16:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think this project is going to accomplish much, but it has a right to exist. If the actions of its members are disruptive or violate WP policy, they'll be dealt with. Carbonite | Talk 12:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but certainly not in this form. Expand scope and move to a NPOV name. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Image review - We sure could use some people who would look after the inclusion guidelines for images on content and legal matters. But fighting only for "decency", whatever that is, is too limited and misguided. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. "Decency" is just a blanket word for "whatever we think is right", much like "democracy" or "freedom" seem to be these days. — JIP | Talk 12:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If some people feel they see a problem (any problem) with wikipedia and want to address it by organising and discussing it through a WikiProject, then I'm more than fine with that. Shanes 13:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: We don't need to be debating the purpose of the page when deciding whether the page can be kept or not. That people don't want to join it is unsurprising, but that's not the question. Did the "delete" people also wish to delete Schoolwatch, m:inclusionists, or m:deletionists, with their calls to action and vote? Weren't all three of those similarly "trying to dictate" the content of the project? Weren't all three mobilizing votes? I would support deleting this page if all future party pages were similarly deleted, and all extant and operative ones were. Schoolwatch, in particular, has generated more name calling and bad feelings than anything I've seen. This one tells people to vote their consciences and looks for alternatives so that information is kept. For this people want to fly into hysterics? Sheesh. Kill all political party pages on Wikipedia, or leave this one alone. Geogre 13:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT and pretty much everything above. Existing procedures and policies for content, disputes and deletion should suffice. --IByte 11:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it. Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 13:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Strong Delete. I have trouble seeing where this fits. There are many reasons to delete something, none of which need a new special project. And having looked closer, it is even worse than I thought.--Apyule 13:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The attempts at censorship is insulting. horseboy 13:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's why you want to censor them. Double double standard standard. - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know of any other way to stop them from censoring Wikipedia? — JIP | Talk 13:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If some people disapprove of explicit images on Wikipedia, and want to organize themselves, it's their freaking business. Strong keep; move to a personal page at worst. - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There a lot of sensitive articles and images on Wikipedia, but there's no need for censoring them. --Madchester 13:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

So you want to censor people discussing images and Wiki instead? --Noitall 13:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, while this project will never go anywhere (we loves our free speech around here), there is no reason to delete it. This is not a personal attack on anyone, and people can honestly hold these views consistent with a NPOV, it is not fair to call it POV pushing. NoSeptember 13:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and censor this profound and shocking indecency. Won't somebody think of the children? — Trilobite (Talk) 13:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Whereas I am inclined to think of these people as right wing prudes wearing Leviticus Bible quote T shirts, we should give them some more time. They could help stop vandals uploading goatse and the like. I don't agree on censorship, but if they're just keeping wiki on the right side of the law, then that's OK. But I'd rather Jimbo just moved the servers to some island with no laws of any kind, try England.- Hahnchen 14:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: I do not consider myself a prude, but such images as the autofellatio are entirely unnecessary for Wikipedia and adds little to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if you all allow these images to come to Wikipedia en masse, Wikipedia will be censored anyways by existing internet censors, such as those that exist for certain countries and those that exist for corporations. Wikipedia will be put on the same level as porno sites, which should never happen. Also, lest we forget overtly-violent images. Why don't we upload some MPG's from certain websites showing various ways of death (woman hit by a train, man blown up, etc)? By the logic of certain members here, those should be allowed as well.

The world isn't ready for some of these images. Don't shove them down their throats (which is, ironic to this argument, POV). --tomf688^<TALK> 14:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, it's about time we started enforcing "no VFD of wikipedia: namespace". I don't think it's a good idea to use VFD to discuss policy, it's overloaded enough as is. Should we warn the nominator, and close this discussion, say in hmm, 24 hours? Kim Bruning 14:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Speedy Delete Everytime you people lose, you change the rules.. I didn't see you object before the votes were counted--172.130.8.51 14:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is "you people"? Kim didn't even vote before this point. Besides, it probably won't be deleted anyways because there isn't a large enough majority. --tomf688^<TALK> 14:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. There are some good points raised by this, but the use of legal threats is disruptive to the mission of the wiki. Sdedeo 14:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia having its own Taliban Ministry Of Vice And Virtue would destroy Wikipedia as we know it. It would be far less damaging to simply IP ban Florida, or the entire US if necessary. Better to lose a limb than die from gangrene. 194.216.55.225
• Delete for all the reasons give above -Splash 14:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since VFD has no jurisdiction here. — Dan | Talk 14:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no purpose for this WikiProject. Any image that is to be removed will undergo IfD like any other, and the community will decide there. Standards are personal: an attempt to force a person's standards on the community would be rejected anyway. This seems to me an attempt to encourage a group of people to adopt a common standard, which is fine, except that they can do nothing about it. So basically, if you want to stick this on your User Page as a "I will begin an IfD for Images that don't meet these criteria", feel free. But since your criteria will be ignored by the rest of the community, this Project is a waste of time. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:38:57, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyone has a POV. Schoolwatch, for example, is dedicated to pushing every school in existence into Wikipedia. Regardless of our personal feelings, let's try to remember that this isn't article-space, thus POV isn't so important. Even if you view them as nutty-nutty-nutbars, they certainly have a right to strive for the unatainable, since clearly there will never be a consensus to censor Wikipedia. I'm at work, so I don't use the random article button. I'd recommend that they don't, either. Incidentally, all of the "We'll put porn on every page just to piss you guys off" responses seem a trifle moronic, and border on trolling. Take a deep breath and try to remember nobody will die either way.--Scimitar ^parley 14:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While the project itself is not in article space, its purpose is to make POV changes in the main or image namespaces. This is different from promoting a point of view that all schools should be included: the school articles are NPOV, while the decency-adjusted articles would be biased in favor of a particular standard. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to incredibly dangerous precedent this project would set. Perceptions of decency are only useful when everyone is equally offended. --Several Times 14:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing wrong with a POV wikiproject, if there are people who want to discuss a subject in a POV way. If they write a policy on that subject, however, it should not be accepted unless it is discussed and by the wikipedia-wide community, and has reached consensus. (Which I hope it will not.) Eugene van der Pijll 14:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Arguments about suppression seem valid enough. VfD isn't the place to argue about the views of people. Sam Vimes 15:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while I do not personally support the aims of this Wikiproject, I believe it is better to allow this kind of thing to operate in the open than to force it underground. Wikipedia has transformed in the last couple years from a small town into a large city; as Geni recently pointed out on the mailing list, you have to expect political parties to form. Trying to suppress one just makes it worse, and increases animosity. Better to have the aims of the group out in the open; openness is good. Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP. We are not here to vote on whether we agree with the aims of the project, but whether the project page can and should be deleted. These are two entirely different issues and must be treated as such. Just because we don't like this WikiProject and because it is our POV that it could be harmful to Wikipedia does not give us the right to delete its page. It is one thing to oppose this project and its actions and another to censor those who disagree with us. BDAbramson sums this up perfectly with his quote above: "Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it." --Canderson7 15:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Week keep -- I would vote delete if I could be persuaded that censoring this project wouldn't be just as wrong as the project's plans to censor other parts of Wikipedia. --Ngb 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, who will determine what is decent...? Don't think so. BillyCreamCorn 16:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, George W. Bush, of course! — JIP | Talk 16:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is merely a misguided and irrational attempt to force a POV down our collective throats, against WP:POINT and Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. This is just a pipe dream that will eventually -- and hopefully -- be abandoned, IMO. However, let's keep in mind that VfDing this page isn't how to go about dealing with this waste of resources and otherwise good editors; succinctly put, VfD articles, not the projects. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. However, I'd like to see the name of the project change to something less prima facie POV, and the project's supporters really should explain their reasons for the project much more thoroughly. See my comments on the project's talk page for details on what I'm getting at. - Haunti 16:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Never mind. Strong Delete. This whole thing has gotten out of hand over the past 24 hours, on both sides of the argument. Agriculture might have his heart in the right place, but even good intentions and assuming good faith can't save this project from the hellhole it's become. Let's put it out of its misery. - Haunti 22:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP as a protection of free speech and as a means of complying with applicable law. Many decry what they call the "censorship" goals of the projec, yet removing this project page would be attempting to silence the viewpoint of the project participants. Also, many delete votes take issue with the concept of determining what is decent, or deciding who gets to determien what is decent. This not a new concept, nor was it introduced by this project or these Wikipedians. We must understand that it is US and Florida law which mandate decency. As with any other law, citizens/corporations/groups have a responsibility to determine how the law applies to them and to abide by the law. The project members are trying to comply with that law. If you find the law ambiguous or not to your liking, then your disagreement is primarily with the legal system. Just because some members of Wikipedia happen to believe society would be better off without these laws, or with amended versions of the laws, that does not change current reality. As tempting as it may be to glorify the internet as some borderless utopia, the fact is that this project is not above or outside of the law. Johntex 17:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  don't you think that would be a better argument if there was such a law?--172.130.8.51 17:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you claiming there are no laws pertaining to indecency on the books today, or that none of them apply to Wikipedia, or something else? Johntex 17:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Democracy in action. nobs 17:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not needed, can cause very bad precedent. Elfguy 17:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, does not violate Wikipedia policy simply by advocacy. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:17, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Chris. Also, if only uneducational and obsene material will be removed, then I don't see any moral or policy violation. I think discussion is a MUCH better option than a VfD.Voice of All(MTG) 17:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - KeithD's comment, a few votes below, best sums up my objection - Tεxτurε 17:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per BDAbramson. Tomer ^TALK 17:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per many above arguments, including Raul654, A Link to the Past, and FCYTravis. ~<7Markaci7> 2005-08-17 T 17:48:39 Z
• Delete. The merits of images and articles on Wikipedia should be decided solely on encyclopaedic merit, and not on whether or not they're 'decent' in the eyes of a self-appointed group of people. This WikiProject comes very close, in my eyes, to undermining Wikipedia's NPOV. KeithD (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ➥the Epopt 18:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I agree with all the Voltaire sentiments expressed above, as I read the project page, its aims are to develop and then enforce a policy that will have been determined by a small group of like-minded moral stentorians. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to go beyond free speech. It is one thing to deplore nudity; another to take actions to enfocre your POV. Dottore So 18:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. In theory their basic idea is not wrong or anti POV, but this should be part of an expansion or modification of the current vague Florida reference on the WP:NOT policy. Creating a cabal to "police" articles is not acceptable within the WP:NPOV guidelines.Gateman1997 18:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Im fairly new to Wiki-stuff and so far I love most of it! But I was shocked by some of the things on here, I just clicked on the Autofellatio image linked above and I cant beleive such filth is allowed on here. Im also worried about the pornography, especially big-bust ones, which is on here, not only because children are watching but because as someone said, the law could shut down Wikipedia (and take away this valuable resource) and because we will probably be blocked by many libraries! Ive heard that a lot of poor people can only read the internet at libraries so I take it that all you voting delete would want to strip poor people of the right to read wikipedia just so you can get your jollies seeing a man fellate himself! Lets set some standards people and let Wikipedia live! :) -DavidsCrusader 18:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the picture autofellatio was vandalsim, it would have been deleted even if there wasn't a self proclaimed morality council, no one has threatened to block wiki from any libraries, and no one has threatend and legal action--172.130.8.51 18:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's called due dilligence. Just because no one has filed suit doesn't mean you can ignore the law. - Haunti 19:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just so I can put your statement into context, are you a lawyer in the state of Florida? Your advice regarding due dilligence made me wonder. If not, what do you base your advice on? - Tεxτurε 19:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not a lawyer in Florida, and I'm not offering legal advice. I'm a Wikipedian who doesn't want our beloved site to get shut down by potential lawsuits. If you care to read my comments on the Project's talk page, you'll see that I, like you, don't like where the Project is currently headed. However, it's irresponsible to ignore the possible implications of having potentially illegal materials on WP. That's pretty self-evident, and you shouldn't require a lawyer to advise you to not break the law. For all I know, I'm using the term "due diligence" incorrectly (I'm not in law school quite yet, ask me again in a couple of years). However, it's simply common sense to make every effort to avoid breaking the law, even if it's a stupidly moralistic one like the Decency Law in Florida. - Haunti 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You say "it's simply common sense to make every effort to avoid breaking the law". So, tell me. Do you understand what the law is in this case? (Draft me a quick brief! :) I don't think you do. I don't think I do. (I'll give the same disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and not giving legal advice. I have taken law classes but have not taken the bar exam in any state.) Someone who is not a lawyer is using law to promote his/her agenda, imo. I do not plan to follow that individual's advice (lawyer or otherwise) without more information. I don't believe that this law has bypassed every first amendment law established and in place. More likely precedent/case law in both Florida and at the federal level makes this unenforceable to our medium and even more likely the law itself digs out exceptions for our use. - Tεxτurε 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I certainly don't claim to understand the totality of the law in this case. There appears to be a wealth of Supreme Court precidence that I haven't even begun to take a look at, and probably won't, not to mention anything else that might affect this issue. Regardless, how does my, or anyone's, current ignorance of the totality of the law constitute a reason for deleting a Project that might (emphasis on might) help us to further understand the effects of that law? Honestly, the way the Project is starting to lean, I'm not getting my hopes up. But an ad hominem attack on me for my knowledge or lack thereof does not reduce the effect of my comments. - Haunti 21:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • A lot of projects [i]might[/i] help us understand the effects of that law. But this one doesn't have it as a goal to understand the effects of that law, and shows no real intent to do so. I don't think there's any real question that Pandora Peaks is within the bounds of the law. But a member of this project has put it up for VfD, and this project has marked up the talk page, in the name of a "Godfearing Parent". Shouldn't we pay attention to what the effects are and probably will be, instead what they might be, especially if there's reason to think that's a smokescreen?--Prosfilaes 21:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Two things: 1) It's hardly fair to pass judgment on a Wikiproject that hasn't even been up for three full days. If all this negativity (deserved or not) had been put towards improving the project instead of dismantling it, we'd be in a much better situation now. 2) Just because one or two project members have gone and put up VfD notices on a few pages does not mean that the project is a bust. DavidsCrusader has taken the whole thing too far, for sure. But one overzealous person who listed themselves on the project page is not necessarily representative of the whole group. You may be right and this whole thing may end up being a moralistic attempt at censoring WP. But remember, when in doubt, assume good faith, at least until the "offender" has been given a chance to explain themselves or change their ways. - Haunti 21:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's a project with an agenda, that makes their agenda loud and clear in their name. The very name says that it's a moralistic attempt at censoring WP. I don't want to improve that; I want to stop it. It's not a neutral project at discovering how the Florida law applies to WP. Their group proclaims their cause clearly; their group members have crossed the line within the first three days. Assume good faith does not mean that you assume they're lying about their goals.--Prosfilaes 22:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Based on their treatment of Pandora Peaks already, it has become VERY obvious what their goal is. They are setting themselves up as the Parents Television Council for Wikipedia, which is both POV and unacceptable.Gateman1997 22:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • An aside: My original posting sent back an error as if it did not post. Thinking of how I worded it and that I may have come off too harsh to you I decided against redoing it. Since it did, may as well discuss it. I do apologize if you took my words as harshly as they could have been received. - Tεxτurε 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did (as you might have guessed), but apology accepted. - Haunti 21:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • One more thing: I did see some names on the project page indicating that they were signing up as observers to make sure it didn't get POV. When I read this I thought it was sabotage additions. (Like "improving" a bad article by making it silly.) Now that I understand your intent I applaud you. I would not have done so since it would have moved forward under an unproven premise: the project's interpretation of Florida law. - Tεxτurε 20:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's pretty much why I got involved. I saw (what I assumed to be) the intention of the project and thought it was a good idea, but things took a wayward turn almost immediately. If you read my comments on the talk page you'll see that I'm trying to get the authors to understand that their premises are mistaken, even though their intentions are good. I really don't think I'm getting through to them, though. - Haunti 21:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This "WikiProject" appears to be a project to impose a systemic bias upon Wikipedia. It therefore appears to be inherently in violation of the NPOV core principle. Its stated goals also appear to be in violation of WP:NOT. --FOo 18:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If you want a "keep wikipedia legal" project create that. Wynler 19:17:39, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

• Delete this flys in the face of the very openness that allows even humble AOL anons like myself to participate--205.188.116.12 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. WP:NOT is clear on the issue that this encyclopedia is not censored for minors. Florida law is subject to the judgment of the United States Supreme Court that an obscene work is "taken as a whole". That means Wikipedia as a whole. One or two raunchy images, usually deleted if they have no legitimate use in the encyclopedia, could never trump the incredible and manifest usefullness of this work as a reference. I believe the originators of this Wikiproject are well-meaning but they misinterpret both the Florida and federal obscenity laws and the project is all too susceptible to being used as a tool to enforce a small group's view of what is "decent". Incidentially, nothing in this vote should be construed as provision of legal services related to Florida law.--Briangotts (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want your children to look at filth like Casey James and Pandora Peaks? I rest my case. -DavidsCrusader 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that it has much relevance to this VfD, but I'd have no problem with my children looking at either article, if they happened to stumble across them. I wouldn't call either article filth, I'd call them entries in an encyclopaedia. Therein lies the problem: what some people call filth, and would like removed from Wikipedia in the name of decency, others have no objection to. The definition of decency is decided by the members of the WikiProject, and thus is non-NPOV. KeithD (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • DavidsCrusader, you have proven my point. The supposed purpose of this project was to comply with Florida law. When I assert that these images do not constitute violations of that law, you fall back to the Helen-Lovejoy-ish "Won't somebody please think of the children?" The fact is, I'm a good enough parent to restrict the access of my children to that material that I believe is age-appropriate for them. I have no intention of supporting an attempt by you to restrict information on a universal encyclopedia to that material which meets your nebulous definition of "decency". --Briangotts (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I am still talking in reference to the law. Accordin to Agroculture, it is illegal to disseminate pornography to minors in Florida. By hosting information on Casey James and others for FREE where anyone can access it, you might be disseminating pornography to minors which is illegal and could theoretically get the Wikipedia SHUT DOWN. Do you want that? Also, what is wrong with thinking about the children? I am a good parent too and I would never let my children use the internet but there are some parents out there who arent as good parents as me and you and we dont want the sins of the parents to come down on a kid. There could be some really lousy parents and because we didnt do anything they could come here and grow up to be freakish harlots and destroy their lives even though it is not their fault that their parents were bad. See my point? -DavidsCrusader 22:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you at all familar with the Miller test and court cases on pornography? You're labelling things as pornographic that aren't even pornographic in the common use of that word, much less in the very narrow legal sense of that word. (There's argument that recent Supreme Court decisions wouldn't accept the banning of simulated child porn.) Wikipedia is not censored for children, and frankly, I, and I suspect many of my other Wikipedians, don't believe that it would have the effects you believe it would on children.--Prosfilaes 22:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well said. If possible I am even more strongly opposed to this project than before. It is clear that at least some of its proponents are using "the law" (which they evidently do not understand, and misstate with a degree of aplomb that would have gotten me flogged in law school) as a smokescreen for their true agenda of removing what they find offensive. Why not Michaelangelo's David? Many others appear to be well-meaning but are panicky about the ramifications of a law they likewise clearly do not understand. No single item on Wikipedia can be obscene (legally speaking) because Wikipedia will be judged for literary, scientific or other communal worth as a whole, much as any encyclopedia would. --Briangotts (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, maybe not flogged per se, unless a stern professorial tonguelashing counts. --Briangotts (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but both the project and this VfD are misguided. A policy change should be proposed, considered, and defined, not implemented by a few users as a project. VfD is not dispute resolution. Gazpacho 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why are you voting to keep it as a project by a few users? - Tεxτurε 20:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I voted only to keep the content of the page. Binary voting makes life easier for admins. Gazpacho

• Delete. The first stated purpose of this project is to "coordinate and promote standards of decency on Wikipedia", which means that its primary goal is censorship, which is not permitted on WikiPedia. The title of the project supports this interpretation, as what is "decent" is intrinsically POV. As it is now, the legal arguments are secondary to the project. If someone were to create a project which focused only on the legal aspects and not on the decency aspects, my feelings might be different. ManoaChild 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. --Randy Johnston 20:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When did it become unacceptable to say that there are some things not appropriate in Wikipedia? DJ Clayworth 20:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has not "become unacceptable to say that there are some things not appropriate in Wikipedia". What does that have to do with this VfD? You can say anything you want. However, the community can vote to remove standards they do not agree with. - Tεxτurε 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sense serious confusion over what we are voting on here. Do you really see this as a vote for this project's standard or goal? I voted keep, but I've said nothing about whether I think this wikiproject is good or needed or anything. I honestly don't know if what these people are concerned about is something we all should care about. I just see a bunch of people wanting to address a particular issue they have with wikipedia. They want to do it in a wikiproject. Much like the people on Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion are concerned about and against deletionism. I don't need to be an inclusionist to let those people have their wikiproject. And I don't need to be against big boobs and nude images on wikipedia to let the people here have their project. At least that's the reasoning behind my keep vote. Have I misunderstood something? Shanes 22:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. It doesn't change my vote but I now understand your point of view. You have sound reasons. Mine are different. - Tεxτurε 22:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An intrisically POV project that does nothing for Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 20:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And they tend to polarise things. I think we should find a picture for Pandora Peaks where she doesn't have her hands down her pants, but I hate to use it even as an example on the VfD page when I know that the Wikipedians for Decency have staked it out on the Talk page and even put the whole article up for VfD. --Prosfilaes 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. If this stays, I will be strongly inclined to start Wikiproject: Shi'ites for Decency, and attempt to censor any content not in accord with Shari'a law. Barno 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete please this is not a move in the best of directions Yuckfoo 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Are we going to censor a group of people discussing censorship? Just thinking a moment about that contradiction more than fulfills my daily requirement for irony. -- llywrch 21:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete the whole concept of decency is very POV and very un-wiki. If Wikipedia is in violation of Florida law, then we should look into moving the servers, not compromising our values. --Outlander 21:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely the key point in here is that it hasn't been established that the Florida Decency Law affects Wikipedia, or to what extent it does affect it. Given that it is accepted on all sides of the debate that 'Wikipedia is not censored for minors' is a good policy, then we have to examine to what extent it may impact on image policy - and this is a legal question and not really a matter of Wikipedia policy judgment. Therefore I vote rename as Wikipedia:Wikiproject Florida Decency law investigation, and target it at lawyers who know about it. I do have a suspicion that the Wikiproject is really an attempt to subvert the policy in a POV way. David | Talk 22:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just all around silly. Slac speak up! 22:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ,bad precendent yadda yadda wikipedia is not yadda yadda most of the salient points have been covered before yadda yadda. Incidentally, I fail to see how this is a wikiproject. The project I nominally contribute to, the bird one, is about creating standardised bird articles, not deleting ones we don't like. Most of the other projects seem to be about that too. If people want to create policy, or form a consensus, do it in the right places. And then watch the community's reaction to their prudish sensibilities. (Incidentally, why would any kid looking for filth come here. 10 keystrokes and one click on google is all it takes to find a world of filth on the web!)Sabine's Sunbird
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 22:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, delete, delete. Wikipedia isn't censored. No way I'll be endorsing a morality police squad. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

A prime example of the kind of overreaching red-pen agenda I'm concerned about: The project template has just been added to Bisexuality and Homosexuality. This is entirely different than discussing, say, an image of autofellatio. Would we see it added to Jerry Falwell? I find him wholly indecent. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The edit differences are [2] for Bisexuality and [3] for Homosexuality. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I disagree with the project but deleting the project page isn't the way to fix the problem, nor will I expect that it will (see FCYTravis' comment above, which I agree with). Also, this does not fall under any criterion in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that is resolved at VfD. JYolkowski // talk 22:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perfectly valid set of editing ambitions, and a project page to co-ordinate those, just like with many other interest groups who co-ordinate their editing. Should be entirely above board - and it's better having such a thing out in the open. zoney ♣ talk 22:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Futher Mucker, I wrote a long comment on here earlier today, but my connection timed out and I lost it. If anybody would like to know why i'm voting the way I am, just contact my talk page. I'm sure this will stick around for awhile anyway. And Jimbo, if Florida gives you any problems, I vote making redundant servers across the globe... or at least moving the main servers to Sealand ;-) Karmafist 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: I'm 99% sure the page itself is just a troll. But even if meant in earnest, WP already has editorial mechanisms for appropriateness. And what is important is encyclopedic quality, not so-called decency. By the existing standards, some "indecent" content might well be candidate for deletion, but let's do that the right (existing) way. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

• Current vote tally is 62 "Delete" to 42 "Keep" +/- 3 votes.Gateman1997 22:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What difference does it make? Let 'em have their club. Nothing that group comes up with is going to change what goes into articles. Did someone appoint them king and I didn't get the memo? To think that Florida law is going to shut down this site for some random image on some article is completely absurd. If some group of fussbudgets wants to worry about that anyway, or pretend to worry about it as a cover for something else, I don't care. Better to have them come out of the woodwork anyway. (Filth like Casey James, for Pete's sake.) Agree with Geogre, BDAbramson, and a buncha others too. -EDM 23:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Wikipedia:Wikiproject censorship and delete. --Carnildo 23:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't really see how anyone can vote "delete" to a wikiproject page, especially this one. It's like saying "there are no indecent pages, except for this one?" (in other news, "there are no absolutes... except this one"?). Is it so hard to argue rather than censor?--67.101.68.103 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at least rename "WikiProject Inserting Systemic Bias." -- Visviva 23:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (changed vote, see below)[reply]
• Keep and Ignore: Let them have their club. If they start revert wars, they can always be banned. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To what's been said above, little can be added; mainly, the problem is that the project was designed to push a POV about "decency" and is basically the work of People for the Removal of Undesired Depictions of Encyclopedic Stuff (PRUDES). I was also disturbed by the way that 'Bible', 'Islam', and other articles were spammed. I suggest that this project be deleted and that a more general "IFDPatrol" project be started, which is based on the criteria of appropriate license, use in an article, and encyclopedic nature. "Voting our conscience" is irrelevant to Images and Other Media for Deletion. The project encourages people to vote on the wrong set of criteria. --Peter Kirby 23:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This shouldn't be a Wikiproject, but a discussion on policy at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion. Martg76 23:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that an argument for moving, rather than deleting? -- Visviva 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a perfectly valid attempt to improve the project. The non-censorship thing is not one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, so it is negotiable. Some people seem to think that all attempts to improve standards of taste are evil, but Wikipedia is probably the only major encyclopedia that has ever existed which makes no attempt to restrain the use of controversial images.

As for bias Wikipedia has very obvious bias - it is controlled by groovy permissives. This reflects the fact it was set up by a soft core pornographer, but it is time to transcend that unfortunate origin. Osomec 23:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment, User:Jimbo was a pornographer?Gateman1997 00:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Any project based upon POV pushing should be deleted as a matter of common sense. The entire concept of the group is against policy and counterintellectual. There is also precedent for deletion, like when the FACTS group (organized to push "respect" for creation "science" was formed and killed. DreamGuy 00:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Andycjp 18th August 2005
• Delete This project is blatantly unnecessary. Wikipedia seems to be in the clear legally so far as images used in articles, and orphaned images are already regularly ifd'ed. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deleting this will only fan the flames. I don't entirely agree with the way the project has been set up, but it should be modified (and possibly moved to a different name), not deleted. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per BDAbramson. I don't like where this leads from a morlistic viewpoint, but I am trusting that admins will not succumb to pressure from moralistic interest groups pushing an agenda of "moral purity". To such people I spurn thee and rebuke thee! Hamster Sandwich 01:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, it's like when clowns all pile into a car. Then at least you know where they all are. Hamster Sandwich 01:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless an NPOV standard for what is/is not indecent can be established. -Seth Mahoney 01:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Seth, that was the point. 1 of the 2 major purposes was to initiate that discussion. --Noitall 01:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Creating a standard is not impossible; without a standard we degenerate to the lowest possible denominator. As is evident by some of the things that pass for "encyclopedic" on WIKI, it can get very low indeed. Storm Rider 01:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move to BJAODN, thanks guys, I needed the laugh--172.167.11.125 01:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move out of Wikiproject space. We already have a precedent of Wikipedia:Wikipedians XYZ pages, and this seems like it would be more comfortable there. There is, unfortunately, precedent for keeping political groups on Wikipedia. It would be silly to delete any of them unless we can delete all of them. -- Visviva 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I sympathize with User:Agriculture. This VfD is bringing out the worst in the community. -- Visviva 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely agree. I think just about everyone here has completely forgotten themselves in this mess. It's a damn shame. - Haunti 01:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proves my point...stand next to somewone in a line they'll be nice to you...put them behind the screen of the computer and shelter them and they show what cowards they truly are with the slanders they have lodged against a few here. Anon Ip's votes should all be summarily dismissed.--MONGO 03:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thirded. A shame indeed. Whoever thought that using personal attacks would be useful should read up on their policies. --Titoxd 02:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, per Harmil and Katefan0. Extraordinary Machine 01:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sarge Baldy 01:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Exploding Boy 02:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and send whoever created it back to whatever blog they came from, a ruling wiki-council would make this into a message board, or a blog, but not an exchange of ideas, or information--172.173.85.232 02:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. The concept of "Decency" is POV and is too ingrained in this project for a rename/move to fix that. ESkog 03:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with extreme prejudice. If desired, those involved can fork to the Crazypedia, where the Faith-based community can leave those of us in the Reality-based community behind. Flyers13 03:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Zoop 04:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for censorship. Do what I do: Cover the right side of the computer screen with your hand when visiting the autofellatio article. Acetic Acid 03:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks Karmafist! --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I understand that there may be people out there who object to elements of Wikipedia. They are more than welcome to start their own competing encyclopedia. In fact I encourage it. The more the merrier, I say. 23skidoo 03:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP How ironic is it that you're all trying to censor someone for alleged censorship, heil comrade!--I-2-d2 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. The concept of "decency" defies NPOV clarification, and such a project will never achieve NPOV. Additional comment - I have attempted to vote here once and was (I assume) overridden by someone else ignoring the "page altered" warning - this history could be quite a squirrely mess by the end if anyone attempts to actually count this. ESkog 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Aren't images screened in the same way recent changes are monitored, through a list? --Zoop 04:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Interest 1

Note the number of personal attacks leveled at the supposed character of the members of the project. I don't feel such is appropriate in this discussion. Agriculture 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another point of interest: Agriculture, I don't feel it's appropriate to post an aggressive rejoinder under every single vote you disagree with. It's not necessary, or customary, or well-regarded. Bishonen | talk 07:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I have been aggressive and uncivil, please point out how and I will rectify it, I am merely trying to point out that a lot of people don't seem to have perused all the documents in question and don't seem to even understand the clearly stated purpose of the WikiProject. Agriculture 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He has every right to discuss people's votes. That's what this process is about. I don't think he's been unduly aggressive, even if he's well advised not to bicker with everyone about it. I note that you didn't censure any of the very aggressive commenters that have put the boot into him. Grace Note 03:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Grace, I appreciate the kind words and help, but he's right. I broke the prime rule of Wikipedia, I forgot that only certain types of free speech are welcome here. Thus why none of the others got censured, they were the right kind of free speech, not the wrong kind. Agriculture 04:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certain users are continually deleting my comments to misrepresent my views on this page. I request they be made to stop. Agriculture 07:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Legitimate and highly pertinent question: What jurisdiction does the State of Florida hold over Wikipedia? Can we get a lawyer to answer this? Fernando Rizo T/C 07:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wikipedia servers are located in Florida, Jimbo says we must follow Florida Law. Agriculture 07:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel it appropriate for Agriculture to try to engage in debate with every person voting delete. I'll assume good faith but notice how many trolls do just that? Please do not hound those who vote different than you, especially at VfD. Thanks, Redwolf24 07:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will cut it down then as you request. I feel the users below have not even read the article in question and are rallying to enforce a POV on Wikipedia. I qualify this by pointing out that if one reads the article in question, most of the objections below don't make much sense in context as they object to things not proposed. I will cease editing for tonight but reserve the right to restore any deleted comments. Agriculture 07:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're rallying to enforce a POV on wikipedia, well aren't you rallying to enfore YOURS? By the way my intent is by no means to sound hostile and I'm not trying to start a fight. Respectfully, Redwolf24 07:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply rallying to try and preserve a page where people can discuss all POV's and try to come to a NPOV decision on decency as Wikipedia Standards, Guidelines, and Florida Law define it. How is that POV? Their POV is that "anyone wanting to discuss standards of decency must be prudes and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia". Agriculture 07:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmhmm, I'm not gonna retort as I'm not interested in an arguement. Now allow me to move this to the bottom as the top should always be the votes. Redwolf24 07:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable Florida Law

847.011 Prohibition of certain acts in connection with obscene, lewd, etc., materials; penalty.--

(1)(a) Any person who knowingly sells, lends, gives away, distributes, transmits, shows, or transmutes, or offers to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, or transmute, or has in his or her possession, custody, or control with intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner, any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose; or who knowingly designs, copies, draws, photographs, poses for, writes, prints, publishes, or in any manner whatsoever manufactures or prepares any such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character; or who knowingly writes, prints, publishes, or utters, or causes to be written, printed, published, or uttered, any advertisement or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, stating, or purporting to state, where, how, of whom, or by what means any, or what purports to be any, such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character can be purchased, obtained, or had; or who in any manner knowingly hires, employs, uses, or permits any person knowingly to do or assist in doing any act or thing mentioned above, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of a violation of this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) The knowing possession by any person of three or more identical or similar materials, matters, articles, or things coming within the provisions of paragraph (a) is prima facie evidence of the violation of said paragraph.

(2) A person who knowingly has in his or her possession, custody, or control any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, film, any sticker, decal, emblem or other device attached to a motor vehicle containing obscene descriptions, photographs, or depictions, any figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose, without intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of violating this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. In any prosecution for such possession, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove the absence of such intent. ...

You left out the part that in order to be obscene the work must be such that: "Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Certainly as a whole Wikipedia has literary merit and aside from the most obviously unencyclopedic stuff, virtually all part of Wikipedia have literary, artistic and/or scientific value. Dragons flight 07:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be part of Florida law, and so doesn't apply. Plus the whole isn't necessarily what should be taken into account, the parts are important too. Agriculture 07:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Section 001 where they define "obscene". Dragons flight 07:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's also the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of obscene. Which makes it apply, any state law to the contrary notwithstanding. FCYTravis 07:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree then, but I think we need to discuss how to determine if the images on Wikipedia have these values which protect them. That is what the project is for, discussion. Agriculture 07:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The images on Wikipedia have these values because they are on Wikipedia - all of the potentially objectionable images that we display are in the context of articles that are meant to inform users of physiological, biological, sociological, or historical facts, and are therefore at least of literary or scientific value. -- BDAbramson ^talk 12:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has ruled that , under obscenity review, a work must be considered in its entirety. Individual elements can not count for or against the work. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not a collection of individual elements. --Outlander 22:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's some pretty messed up legislation. I'm glad that I don't live in Florida. --Apyule 07:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned several times that that section says you can't distribute such images to minors. For the record, the section that discusses minors, section 012 [4], says "It is unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, rent, or loan for monetary consideration to a minor: (a) Any picture... which depicts nudity or sexual conduct". Since we are neither selling, renting nor loaning for monetary consideration, the section doesn't apply. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 13:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot this part: lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner,...the law applies absolutely.--MONGO 14:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos was talking about Section 12, the one specifically about minors. That does not include the text you have in italics, and furthermore contains the requirement that the material be "harmful to minors", which is defined in Section 1 with the usual "no serious value" etc of the standard obscenity definition. PeteVerdon 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interest 2

User:Agriculture has indicated on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion that he/she doesn't think that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that "most bodies" hold this same view, though when asked to point to proof of his claim, he resues to do so. Just something worth pointing out. Zoe 07:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone who reads Slashdot has seen the article, I've had enough stress tonight to bother with being your gopher. I want to help make Wikipedia more encyclopedic, I just pointed out the view of others in reference to a conversation which must be seen in context. Agriculture 07:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does being your gopher mean? Redwolf24 07:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing busy work because someone else has requested you to do so, especially when it will make no difference. Agriculture 07:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gopher this, gopher that... A person that goes-fer :p --Veratien 12:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for deletion. Useless ideology is worthless, to conform with Florida law it'd be possible to just block all incoming IP traffic from Florida. Lullabye Muse 08:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An amusing but highly unlikely outcome. :p However, this 'Florida Law' problem could be rectifed by moving the servers to Switzerland... :p --Veratien 12:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interest 3

Repeatedly, I see that some suggest moving the servers out of Florida...unfortunately most states have similar legislation regarding these issues. Everyone needs to take a step back and recognize that the people attempting to start this project are not your enemies...we all enjoy the benefits of a free Wikipedia. The purpose of this project was to establish some baseline from which to both adhere to written law and ensure that Wikipedia becomes the most respected source of information on the web. There are some, such as myself that feel that some items in Wikipedia are not encyclopedic and possibly violate applicable laws. We may be right and we may be wrong. Censorship of this project is a double standard.--MONGO 10:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

OMG isn't it about time the south tries to cede the union again? common, we won't stop you this time, I promise--Mr.Anon, goes to the VFD 13:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Montana in the south...maybe compared to Canada. Read some history...more guns+more men=victory, in almost every instance.--MONGO 13:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that worked out well, anyway.. what's Montana have to do with Florida? and what makes you think AOL stands for Canada On Line?--172.130.8.51 13:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. Jimbo Wales, I recall, deleted the Autofelliato image stating that it had no absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Anyway, as said before, this project aims to set a standard for what belongs and what does not. At the same time, it would be nice to keep with Florida Law. P.S. Peace everyone, why is this debate so violent? Banes 10:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about moving the servers to Tuvalu or Antarctica ? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving the servers to Antarctica would be cool, ha ha, get it? cool. Giggle giggle snort;(Please ignore that weak attempt at humor.) Moving along, IByte, you must put your vote above this where the other votes are. Banes 11:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as potentially harmful to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Pornographic images can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis without an organized censorship campaign. Haikupoet 20:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Interest 4

Regardless of what the outcome is, I suggest that the result of this vote be treated as Delete, the number of personal attacks leveled above and the extreme bias against discussion exhibited by a number of the voters indicates even if the result is No consensus or Keep, they will see to it that no real discussion can be had, and disrupt any attempts at dialog. Note the user who has "signed up" for the project with the outrageous comment that objectionable content needs to be placed on every page. This kind of disruptive attitude will just result in a lot of useless work by project members at attempting to discuss while countless acts of vandalism are committed by those who disagree with the discussion because it is after all the wrong kind of free speech for Wikipedia. As such save us all a lot work and stress and Speedy Delete. Agriculture 15:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Project endorses the removal of educational images. Why do you think it's being mocked? -- A Link to the Past 15:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

No, it endorses discussion. We're being mocked because people have no respect for civility in discussion. But then this is Wikipedia, being civil is against Wikipedia Policy. Agriculture 16:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is not policy, discussion is merely discussion. Agriculture 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no to you, you do have the right to be an overt bible thumper, you do not have the right make that into policy, removing a policy of censorship, is no more a form of censorship, then removing a persons 'right' to own slaves, is civil rights violation--172.130.8.51 16:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, like, it wouldn't be a problem for a project to endorse racism on Wikipedia? This needs not any discussion; there is no logical dispute that an image like Autofellatio is not educational. -- A Link to the Past 16:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like your opinion consists of "My POV is NPOV, all others are irrelevant and no logical dispute can be made but mine." Agriculture 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is. If you had a logical dispute, it would have been presented. You're stumbling over what you say, and your argument is constantly changing to suit it ("well, okay, educational images are protected, but I say they're not educational!"). It just seems you're on a crusade to put your personal opinion on decency into articles. Should we delete Sex, Anal sex and Oral sex? -- A Link to the Past 16:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

As a note, I'm taking advice I've been given and not feeding the troll. Agriculture 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling =/= Trying to uphold Wikipedian policy. And, by the way, stating the fact that your argument lacks logic is not trolling, either. -- A Link to the Past 16:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• ok, how about instead of deletion, we propose soemthing else, a foward/move to Wikipedians_for_Decency so it doesn't look like Wiki is endorcing you, or giving you some kind of special status?--172.130.8.51 16:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look here, Link to the Past, why is a color photograph of a man sucking his own penis more educational than a simple drawing. Educational? I was never taught how to do that in school! Must have gone to the wrong place...grumble grumble.. Anyway guys, please stop calling each other trolls because that is in itself trolling. Peace Out! Banes 18:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See speedy keep above

Ok, let's actually stop vfding the wikipedia: namespace, as per original policy.

I'd like to close this vfd and warn the nominator, within the next 24 hours. Any objections?

Kim Bruning 14:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, do you mean delete the project or close this page? Banes 14:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Kim means that she wants to close the VfD, and yes, Kim, I object. There is no rule that says that you cannot VfD the wikipedia: namespace. See [5]. Sdedeo 14:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, there are a whole bunch of objections up above, labelled as delete votes. I don't recall a policy that says WP: space is somehow out of scope to VfD. -Splash 14:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Support the closure of this Vfd...nominator even stated that Vfd's in WikiProjects namespaces is unusual....I propose the section regarding tagging of "indecent" articles and images be eliminated along with the template that goes with it.--MONGO 14:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Of course you can VfD a WikiProject or a page in the Wikipedia: namespace. The nominator has broken no rules. This is manifestly not a speedy keep. David | Talk 14:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Kim, this project needs to be punched in the face. Punch! -- A Link to the Past 14:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• I think this may be an important vote which should continue. Note that the nomination policy says "pages in Wikipedia namespace... can be nominated for deletion on VfD, and can be deleted as such. However, this is relatively rare." ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Nod* while it's possible to delete pages in the Wikipedia: project space, it often ends up as a majority vote on the policy, project, or proposal stated. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" , and having VFD as a backdoor like this is probably not a very good idea. I suggest moving this discussion (copying it to the page) to the relevant talk page for the wikiproject itself. Would that be ok? Kim Bruning 14:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I feel that this would not be okay. As you can see, there is a lot of controversy in this, and many see it as a very legitimate vote (which it is). It seems to me that the vote here is not on whether material is appropriate for children (policy is quite clear on that), but rather the intent of the Project, as it should be. I oppose closing the VfD before it is complete. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:59:24, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

• So you agree that this is indeed a (majority?) vote on policy being conducted on vfd? Hmm, see also here Kim Bruning 15:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• How can a majority of 4 people? be enough to overide a majority of delete votes, numbering in the dozens?? obviously, all the poeple who voted delete thought they could vote, same for the people who voted keep, pulling the plug now simply says, too bad, keep wins on a technicality--172.130.8.51 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't close this. The chance has passed now. If you want to make it clear Wikipedia: nominations shouldn't be allowed on grounds of degenerating into majority votes on policy (which is fine by itself) have that written up as an explicit guideline so we can refer to it. Technically closing it would be fine since it's quite obvious this is not getting any form of consensus that could matter, but you're setting yourself up for accusations of pushing through your opinion on something (in this case, the nonviability of VfD for policy discussions). Best avoid that by either giving this its five days, or convincing Jimbo to do it for you. Anything short of that is going to be unproductive. Well, even more unproductive, I mean. JRM · Talk 15:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think VFD should be where we decide policy, so I certainly wouldn't object to this VFD being closed. I hate this particular project and it's aims but I respect it's right for the community to shoot the idea down, on the project page. -- Joolz 15:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've changed my mind now, this page appears to be a subtle attack page and certainly not working towards NPOV positions. -- Joolz 23:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that there is a difference between the examples cited by the people on the VfD talk page and this VfD. Which is, we are not here deleting or attempting to change a Wikipedia policy. If WP:VfD or WP:POINT was up for deletion, of course the nomination would be removed. I suppose this VfD is about policy (suitable for children), but the debate here seems more about enforcement of a policy than changing a policy. I dunno, I just feel that closing it now is going to be counterproductive. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:59:02, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

  I'd suggest that this isn't a VfD about a policy. It's a VfD about the use of a Wikipedia collaboration mechanism (namely, a WikiProject) for a purpose diametrically opposed to a Wikipedia core policy It's like "WikiProject Imposing An Anti-Sex POV". Should we next allow "WikiProject Inserting Systemic Bias" and "WikiProject NPOV-is-Satan"? --FOo 19:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The consensus is that that this is a legit VfD and it should be allowed to run its course. I can't see where you have consensus for speedy keey. Pilatus 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - I do not feel the admins have the right to suppress discussion which is clearly ongoing and has a point to it, and I feel that closing this VfD could well be construed as suppressing discussion. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 16:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Nominator has broken no rule, so this can't count as a speedy keep. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object WLD 20:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not as harmless as it seems

• at least one of them seems to be an admin, and had been going around, deleting pages that voice and opposition to this--172.130.8.51 14:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the deletions are mainly due to the title containing a personal attack. Violetriga also refers to WP:POINT. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which apply if the Wikipedia: prefix really does make something exempt from deletion, regardless of POV, as was implied on this page--172.130.8.51 15:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I have seen some people voting keep because of it's spot in the Wikipedia space, I remember that a Wikiproject dealing with either some type of Jewish bias (not sure which one) was deleted via thia process. Plus, in my own defense, this and voting keep for the autofellatio image is the only thing I have done in this recent debate over Decency vs Censorship. I have not deleted pages or anything to that relating to this at all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the votes stand at Keep 28 votes. Delete 38 votes. I think that is about right, I may have missed a vote. Banes 15:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 49 votes. -- A Link to the Past 20:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Point of Interest 5

I have been looking around and reading and I beleive our group has been infiltrated by outsiders who have attempted to show crazy views in order to discredit us, strawmen arguments. Look at User:Brodo on it he says that MONGO who is here with WfD is just a "neofascist sockpuppet". I would like it to be noted that the moral relativists AKA those for deleting this on this page are resorting to such nasty and uncouth tactics to win their arguments, this is notlike Wikipedia! -DavidsCrusader 19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• perhaps you want to make it more exclusive, maybe you can set up a second council to determine if someone is moral enough to be a part of your group, that should make it look less like you're trying to force a very narrow viewpoint on other people--205.188.116.12 19:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People going against the 'Don't be a dick' aspect of the Wikipedia:Policy_trifecta shouldn't undermine the reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, nor be used to support the reasoned arguments, again, on either side. It should be an irrelevance. KeithD (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be careful tossing around terms like "moral relativists" on Wikipedia. If you believe that adhering to the NPOV policy is tantamount to moral relativism I'd think about finding somewhere else to spend your time. Oh, and by the way, I think if you knew me you'd probably be pretty quick to accuse me of being a "moral relativist" (ie - someone who doesn't see it necessary to oppose his viewpoints on others). And yet, I'm one of the strongest supporters of keeping the WfD project and not deleting it (yet). I'd hazard that it's exactly the kind of attitude you're presenting here that makes most users hesitant to support WfD. In other words, please tone it down a notch. - Haunti 20:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am about 99% sure that the statement on User:Brodo is a joke. My guess is that both of them edited the George W. Bush article, and that Brodo was accused of using MONGO as a sockpuppet. That said (I speak only for myself here, but I'm sure it applies to others), I don't care who's doing the standard-creation. I oppose it anyway. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 20:03:05, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • The user page you cite is a troll that uses sockpuppet accounts. He posted my picture on his page for no reason other than harassment. I use and log in only as MONGO. I never Rfc that user page because he can just get another IP and I don't play games here.--MONGO 00:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of talk pages tagged by this project

A number of articles have been tagged as being "part of" this project, including several which would appear to have no reasonable "decency" issues. The tagging of religious articles is, I think, of particular concern. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for the confused: a number of these, e.g. the religious pages were indeed tagged by User:Agriculture who is (afaik) the original creator of Wikipedians for Decency. A number of the other pages where such a posting would have a shock effect were tagged by an anonymous user who mimicked the style but signed as "Godfearing Parent". A number of pages were also put in a category "Indecent" by the same user.

I hope this helps explain what's going on. I also posted an explanation on top of Wikipedians for Decency in case anyone ends up there.

My two cents: Agriculture probably didn't help his cause by soliciting help in such a way. People primarily motivated by religion is not what I would want in this wikiproject, at least - just people concerned about some kind of minimalistic "editorial taste and judgment" as Jimbo puts it. On the other hand the anonymous vandal really didn't help his case, that's a pretty disruptive tactic, and there is every indication that it has confused a number of people as to whether he really was (or was acting on behalf of) the Wikipedians for Decency. That's a really lame way to troll for votes. Surely if he had a reasonable argument he would have posted that instead? ObsidianOrder 02:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Anastasia Christ
• Talk:Anglicanism
• Talk:Anna Malle
• Talk:Aurora Snow
• Talk:Autofellatio
• Talk:Baptist
• Talk:Bible
• Talk:Bisexuality
• Talk:Christian theology
• Talk:Christian
• Talk:Devinn Lane
• Talk:Hip hop
• Talk:Homosexuality
• Talk:Islam
• Talk:Jew
• Talk:Lutheranism
• Talk:Methodism
• Talk:Mormon
• Talk:Pandora Peaks
• Talk:Pornography
• Talk:Presbyterianism
• Talk:Protestantism
• Talk:Religious Society of Friends
• Talk:Restoration Movement
• Talk:Roman Catholic Church
• Talk:SaRenna Lee
• Talk:Sex
• Talk:Timea Vagvoelgyi
• Talk:Wicca
• Talk:Zara Whites

• Thank you for compiling this list. Everyone "delete" those tags with extreme prejudice.Gateman1997 23:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually his use of certain religious pages is probably a warped way to electioneer this VfD. He's trying to get the "moral majority" to come and support him. I think it's time this "project" got a quick shot to the head and was put down.Gateman1997 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • You know what? Since you are all leaving manners by the side, I'm going to as well. Up yours, those tags on Christian sites were added well before the VfD was even proposed go check the links and see for yourself, a lot of the other tags were added by users voting to Delete here to make it look like we're trying to censor. Check the damn logs before you mouth off. Agriculture 23:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Now who is being obscene?Gateman1997 00:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Me, because I'm sick and tired of being the damn Wikipunching bag. Agriculture 00:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I won't speak for the rest of the Wikiverse, but if anything I've said has been taken as a personal attack on you I apologize for that. It was not my intention.Gateman1997 00:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Go read the whole damn page above, we're getting called everything from prudes to Nazi Baby Raping Satanists. Then the same damn users who are voting to delete think it would be funny to use the article inclusion template to vandalize in order to turn EVERYONE against us. Wikipedia isn't a place for discussion, debate, or free speech, it's a just a bunch of kids looking to have fun at other people's expense. Agriculture 00:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some wag put one on Talk:Evolution too. --FOo 02:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid, notifying religious people that is really underhanded. We can't trust those buggers. Bible thumpers all of them; well, except for hose Wicans, they just like good, wholesome things; damn them too. Extreme prejudice in deleting those notifications, YES!!! Keep the moral people ignorant so we can delete this terrible, wicked page that would allow people to discuss standards. GIVE ME A BREAK!!! I have never read so much crap in all my life. A man who can suck himself is educational??? Educational for who? Why is it so sacrosacnt that it can not even be discussed! You people amaze me. Everyone is free to discuss anything as long as it agrees with me. Boy, do I love liberal elites and mental midgets; they make me so proud to be human. Storm Rider 02:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of Elites, so far I have read user pages and I have identified at least FOUR users on here who are involved in the liberal arts academic world, and surprise surprise they voted to DELETE. Also someone deleted the obscenity tag off of the Chelsea Charms article WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION. -DavidsCrusader 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just thought I'd point out that no one needs your permission to do anything on Wikipedia.Gateman1997 02:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portraying this as the poor innocent religious folk against the evil liberal arts world just makes it look all the more firmly that it's POV. Try inclusionist tactics, not exclusionary tactics. And no one has to get your permission to do anything. Wikipedia asks editors to be bold, not ask permission from the editors that preceeded you.--Prosfilaes 03:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got a book that lists books that were considered indecent by 16th century England. The authors tend to lose their heads or at least their ears or freedom. To bring the religous people together on the presumption that they are the moral people to pass judgement on the rest of us has been the death of many, many people, and the silence of many others. But, no, we should trust them implicitly. It's nice to see that the side that is whining the personal attacks feels so free to dish them out.--Prosfilaes 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interest 6

These supposedly neutral people are now branching into attacking other non-Christian religions. Crazy Christians attack Wicca. Gateman1997 22:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a group of users with the intention of promoting their particular viewpoint on Wikipedia. Not sharing it is not a valid reason to vote 'Delete'. Vacuum c 23:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um point of contention. Users aren't supposed to HAVE a viewpoint. Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. Gateman1997 23:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's can have opinions, but mainly NPOV said that we cannot push our viewpoints on everyone who contributes here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then the question would become are those tags that they're putting out there a PUSH of a POV. I consider them as such. Don't know what everyone else thinks on the topic.Gateman1997 00:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'll note no one from the project has been doing it, if you trace them back I think you'll find the people here who have voted delete and posted personal attacks are behind the tagging, trying to force a delete. Agriculture 23:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's true it's deplorable but it still doesn't change the fact this is a POV project or that you have tagged articles yourself on Christian, Islam, and Jewish pages trying to drum up support for your cause. Gateman1997 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when do Christians Jews and Muslims share views on Decency? We were trying to get people involved in the discussion, not trying to force a POV. When will you people sit down and get it through your damn heads, WIKIPROJECTS DON'T HAVE EXCLUSIVE MEMBERSHIPS. The POV of the project would in the end be simply the POV of Wikipedia because ANYONE CAN JOIN. Now go visit my user page, there is a message there for you. Yes, I know it hurts my arguments, but I don't care anymore, you have all destroyed my faith in the NPOV of Wikipedia. You all have an agenda, and you push it using dirty dirty tactics. Agriculture 00:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims share many views on decency. The specific details may vary, but they share a common bias against nudity and towards adult, heterosexual relationships between married people only. And the simple fact you chased after religious people, and didn't post a link on the pornography talk page is a sign. --Prosfilaes 02:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a project?

I mentioned this in my vote but it somewhat got lost. I don't see why this is a Wikiproject. Accoring to Wikipedia:WikiProject, wikiprojects are designed to co-ordinate the efforts of several users, and to allow a group of conceptually related pages to have similar structures and appearance. This page/project is nothing to do with that. Shouldn't we be encouraging the participants to create a concensus page, or a policy for wikipedians all to vote on? Sabine's Sunbird 00:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this was changed into a policy proposal page or such maybe people might reconsider their delete votes. -- Joolz 00:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page was put up for deletion almost as soon as it started. Nevertheless, here was 1 of the 2 primary proposed "projects":

Suggest constructive ways to modify the statement of policy

Current policies:

• Wikipedia is not censored
• Wikipedia:Image_use_policy
• Wikipedia:Profanity
• Undefined "no nudity policy" but that does not mean it must be G-rated
  • The current undefined "no nudity policy" is more on the lines of "no pornography" policy, the difference being that nudity could be found in an art museum, pornography could not.

--Noitall 01:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the definition of "pornography" is hardly clear, and you clearly can find things that most people would call "pornography" in modern art museums. --Fastfission 01:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales weighs in on the legal issues

I copied this from the mailing list. If there is a problem with copying text from the mailing list, please remove it.

Fastfission wrote:

>> If images which would very likely count as
>> "obscene" under that particular state law (Florida?) were able to be
>> X-ed out (that is, their presence would be visible, even though their
>> content would not be) by default, and could be "enabled" by people who
>> swore that they were not minors (or didn't live in the U.S.), wouldn't
>> that solve a few problems at once? Those who are worried about seeing
>> a nipple wouldn't by default, while those who wanted to see them could
>> easily do so, and instead of doing it under the guise of someone's
>> projected "decency", we were doing it simply to comply with U.S. law
>> (blame U.S. prudery on this all you want, but I'm betting laws of a
>> similar sort, though with different boundaries set, exist in most
>> countries).

I'm sorry but I think it bears repeating firmly and often that a nipple
showing is in absolutely no way illegal in the United States. We could
show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24
hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States.

It is pretty difficult to come up with something which is legally
"obscene" by US standards in the context of Wikipedia. And our own
internal processes seem so far quite adequate to keep us very far from that.

One thing I like to emphasize in this context is that sound editorial
judgment is not the same thing as censorship. We don't show full-blown
mainstream pornography on the front page of wikipedia as a matter of
editorial taste and judgment, not out of concern with censorship law.

>> An
>> additional thought which occurred to me is that I'm fairly sure a
>> federal law was passed not too long ago which requires age
>> verification information for nude models to be hosted by the website
>> hosting their pictures (proof that they are at least 18 years old). If
>> that's the case, that's another unpleasant legal/technical thing to
>> think about.

I do think that this law may have some applicability, but it does *not*
apply to models who are merely nude. It applies, and I would have to
look it up again to get the exact language, to models engaging in
specific explicit activity -- I don't think we have any images of this,
but this law could be used to argue that we can't host photographs on
autofellatio unless I'm willing to keep documentation on file from
the models (and I'm not). But this does not apply to drawings, which is
what we have there now, for better or worse.

--Jimbo

(The email in question is here, and a second one on the same thread here.)

Post Jimbo Discussion

• Well that pretty much settles the legal issues then. Jimbo and Wikipedia have nothing to fear from the US or Florida Governments over anything except MAYBE the autofellatio image.Gateman1997 00:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • ...and that only because of the lack of desire to keep age records on the fellow, not because of the image content specifically. --Fastfission 01:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering his work history, I'd be more likely to trust him on this particular legal issue than the rest of us schmucks. - Haunti 00:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it true he was involved with the porn industry?Gateman1997 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Bomis and Jimmy Wales. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-18 T 01:13:49 Z
• "sound editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship" - sound editorial judgment is exactly what the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency was meant to be in the first place. As far as I know, not a single Admin or anyone with any "powers" was involved in its creation. It was meant to use the powers of persuasion that File:Autofellatio 2.jpg, which I put up for deletion, to convince others that it did not meet a proper standard for Wiki. There was no "legalities" or "enforcement" of anything we did, only "sound editorial judgment." --Noitall 01:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Jimbo wasn't saying yea or nay to this particular project, he was commenting specifically on whether the legal issues brought up by its members were applicable. In the context of the larger discussion, he was addressing the larger issue of image filtering which has been talked about on the mailing list for some time now. --Fastfission 01:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your interpretation is entirely wrong. He specifically stated his comment was not about the legal end. I quoted part of it, here is the entire part:

One thing I like to emphasize in this context is that sound editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship. We don't show full-blown mainstream pornography on the front page of wikipedia as a matter of editorial taste and judgment, not out of concern with censorship law.

--Noitall 01:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, it's like when clowns all pile into a car. Then at least you know where they all are. Hamster Sandwich 01:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, now. I'm not convinced everyone involved with this project had some censorship agenda in mind. Certainly some users did, but not all. Gateman1997 01:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is quite settled now that due to the legal ramifications present in anti-pornography laws and Wikipedia that this Project must be kept open. I propose than an administrator close this at once as a victory for Keep and have the nominator and the rude people who made Agriculture leave banned for 24 hours. -DavidsCrusader 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What? Did you read what's posted directly above? The point was that the law protects Wikipedia in pretty much every current circumstance, with the possible exception of the autofellatio image. I doubt we need a whole project to stop one image from being posted. I don't want Agriculture to leave either, but your comment doesn't really make much sense. - Haunti 01:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:DavidsCrusader

I would like to note that looking at User:DavidsCrusader, the user appears to be a sockpuppet created by Wikipedians who disagree with WfD to discredit it's members by providing a strawman to argue against. Another example of the dirty dirty tactics used by Wikipedians. Agriculture 02:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agriculture, Im sorry if I have hurt the movement in any way, it wasnt my intention. I am not here to "discredit" us, I was sent here by Noitall. He left a message on [[6]] that your movement shared my beliefs and I should join, so I did, at that same time it was VfD'ed and I decided this was one American that was NOT going to take it, so I decided to fight it. I realize I was not as civil as I should be, I will try to be more civil and hopefully try later on the pornography deletion case -DavidsCrusader 03:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a movement TROLL, it's an attempt at discussion. Noitall never did as you claimed, now quit it or someone is gonna get really pissed. Agriculture 03:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean he never did that?:

"# Keep The issue of deletion of a page is notability and she is notable. The picture is an appropriate version of her as a person, not in any sex act. Many of us do believe that Wiki needs standards, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, but there is nothing here to cause the deletion of anything on this page. One more important point: nothing in this article or picture was done specifically to get on Wiki--she did it on her own to promote herself and her career. --Noitall 13:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)" thats directly from the page -DavidsCrusader 04:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. Or he could possibly just be a new Wikipedian; he did appear before this VfD started. This sounds like paranoia instead of a real, valid complain.--Prosfilaes 03:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This user is a sockpuppet for Stamford spiney (talk · contribs). Looking at the VfD for Knees Up Mother Earth (the logged VfD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Knees Up Mother Earth), one will note that the nomination was made by DavidsCrusader, but the user stating "I was too hasty." is Stamford spiney. I urge all voters to DISREGARD anything by this sockpuppet. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:11:49, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Note that SS said to VFD, DC nominated, SS retracted. I think DC is an eminently suspicious user, and I feel his encylopedic standards have as much weight as the electrons they're written on, but I think you're seizing on invalid evidence there. Shimgray 03:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, could be. I do find it odd that his first edit (and in fact, 29/33 of his edits) are in regards to this Project... -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:20:28, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

• Agriculture is right, this is a sockpuppet/troll. DavidsCrusader first appeared yesterday (02:49, 16 August 2005) about 9 hours before this VfD was posted, and immediately started a number of VfD's on articles about women with large breasts [7]. Since then he's done nothing but hang around at this page and actively troll with comments such as "Also someone deleted the obscenity tag off of the Chelsea Charms article WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION.". LOL. Begone, troll. ObsidianOrder 03:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think he is as Agriculture contends someone placed here to discredit his Wikiproject, but rather just a plain old troll.Gateman1997 03:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • how can you be sure, from what I've observered, people of the liberal persuasion are capable of almost anything--64.12.116.7 03:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually if anything this user seems to be of the highly conservative persuasion. But let's not have this degenerate into a political spectrum debate please.Gateman1997 03:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe not. The timing is too precise though. ObsidianOrder 03:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interest 7

Anon IP 172.167.11.125 (talk · contribs) and 172.173.85.232 (talk · contribs) are the same person....voted Delete twice...logged in and edit history shows no other edits except here...probable sockpuppet uses would hardly surprise me based on the rest of the adolescent behavior and commentary shown by numerous voters here.--MONGO 03:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Once the VFD is declared closed by the admins, they will go through and make sure that each vote is legit. Some annons and new people voted delete, some voted keep. So the final tally on both sides will be reduced, but I am not sure by how much. However, I will not close the VFD myself and it will be closed by an uninvolved admin. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An effort to speedy keep failed and this doesn't qualify for speedy delete, so there will be a need for a calculator in another 4 days.--MONGO 03:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)