Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Notice board archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2010-11[edit]

WP:NOTCENSORED[edit]

After failing to get a consensus to change the Wikipedia is not censored policy at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (although they haven't stopped beating the dead horse there yet), a group of editors is attempting to organise to try again. Places to keep an eye on are User talk:Anthonyhcole, User talk:Ludwigs2 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Neutrality. Thryduulf (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bukkake[edit]

A debate over images in the article, how many, possibly replacing drawings with pictures, or removing images. One of the editors wishes to censor sexually explicit content by replacing the current drawings with a symbol.

There is also a discussion about attempting to rename the article from Bukkake to Bukkake (pornography), in order to classify the sex act as a fictional act that only appears in films. By doing that, then justification for not allowing images will be pursued, IMO. There seem to be a number of smart people who mask a hidden agenda of removing and cesoring sexually explicit images by using other rationale for their actions. The only reasonable discussion seems to be whether two very similar images both need to be in the article. Atom (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda McMahon[edit]

There is an issue with editors misinterpreting BLP and UNDUE policies to whitewash the Linda McMahon article. Current issues involve the inclusion of a controversial tipoff memo that McMahon wrote, as well as the inclusion of speculated events leading to her rise to President of the company in 1993. I included the material and referenced it, but deletionist editors with a gross misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies have been deleting it and threatening me.--Screwball23 talk 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

The FCC will enact legislation that will treat the Internet now as a public utility as part of Net Neutrality. - [1] Chris (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons's "Sexual Content" project[edit]

Jimbo has begun a massive "clean up" project to rid Commons of pornography. See Discussion at Commons or this article for background. (What's the date of this posting, and who posted it?)

2008[edit]

December 2008[edit]

For those not aware, a few days back the Internet Watch Foundation decided, due to the content of Virgin Killer, to add Wikipedia to their blacklist. Their method of blocking has resulted in about 90% of the United Kingdom being reduced to a few IP addresses, which of course have been blocked because of the high levels of vandalism they have produced. However, there has been a huge amount of collatoral damage that the Account Creation and Unblock teams have been dealing with. For more information on this, see Wikipedia:AN/IWF. l'aquatique || talk 07:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


September/October 2008[edit]

Censorship has been occurring with certain categories relating to Jews here on Wikipedia -- a record of such censorship can be found in my userspace here. My userspace which documents this censorship has also been censored multiple times too, so go in to the edit history to retrieve the evidence if needed. --Wassermann (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not censorship, that's a content dispute, and this page is not the place for airing it. Orpheus (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2008[edit]

13 August 2008[edit]

4 August 2008[edit]

An editor that originally has been trying to remove images in the breast and ejaculation articles on the basis of the images being innapropriate and obscene, and then proceeded to change his language to claim removal is necessary for the quality of the article, and that the images are no encylopedic, or than only one image is needed in the article. Surveys in each article are underway in order to get a feel for consensus of editors views and stop/prevent further edit wars. Atom (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2008[edit]

found this on the talkpage, though i'd copy it here. Ryan shell (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An issue which has occupied me for a while might be worth raising here. Last year I saw there was a fair amount of material on Wikipedia along these lines (current article names) Catholic sex abuse cases (which inter alia features a long list of individual abuse cases), Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country (ditto), Ferns Report, and so on.

Having no axe to grind - check my edit history - but for reasons of simple curiosity I looked for where Wikipedia mentions abuse in the Scouts (as detailed in, e.g., Patrick Boyle's book Scout's Honor: Sexual Abuse in America's Most Trusted Institution). I couldn't find any reference to abuse anywhere in what seems to be an extraordinarily large number of pages about scouting. So I tried simply adding a reference to the Boyle book to the main Scouting article: this lasted less than an hour. Not long later I was insulted (labelled a Troll by an editor with many scouting edits in his history) which was a surprise.

I ended up doing quite a lot of research and then creating an admittedly not particularly strong page, which copies the name of the Catholic equivalent - Scouting sex abuse cases. After doing this – and arguing some truly strange points with what seems to be well-organised pro-scouting editing - I took a nice long break. Coming back, I see the page is now almost a joke page, and most of the research is ignored. There is nothing like parity across the sex abuse pages so last month I posted this on Talk: Catholic sex abuse cases:

Perhaps there are good/experienced editors who look at this page, who might be interested in taking a look at a (very) different article: Scouting sex abuse cases. There are well-organised vested interests determined to cover-up what goes in the Scouts so some fresh contributions might be useful.

In relation to that final comment:

(a) I have no animus against scouts, scouting or scoutmasters (or at least I didn’t until this article brought me into conflict with scouting-keen Wikipedia editors, some of whom have been elected to higher positions)
(b) This quote from a 2006 article in the Seattle Times [2] is maybe of most relevance to this project:
They have thrown just an unbelievable amount of money and effort at preventing us from getting these records and telling the world about them

Testbed (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • i've skimmed some of the talk pages on articles you've mentioned, and i agree, this is obviously censorship, but it is there are several key points that need to be worked on. to list a few, prove (to the good-scouting PR editors) by that sex abuse in scouting is note-able and should be mentioned on the scouting page. next, Scouting sex abuse cases need to be looked at kept from moving (if such a thing is ever suggested again), also a neurtral editor need to look at it for neutrality issues. i'm going to put this on the notice board to show the rest of the project. peace! Ryan shell (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 May 2008[edit]

Resolved

Attempts to delete Image:Virgin Killer.jpg. Appears to be an attempt to censore a nude pic of underage girl despite that fact that it doesn't appear to be illegal on any country, that it's an album cover like hundreds that are already used, and that the image is actually discussed on the article. See the closed IdF at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg, which got closed under WP:NFCC Non-free usage problems and the ongoing deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_9. There was an ANI thread that got archived[3] --Enric Naval (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

26 April 2008[edit]

Attempts are being made to censor the very mention of creationism and a young earth theory as alternative views to the theory of evolution and old-earth theory on articles such as Earth, and History of the earth.

Archived discussion can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship#History_of_earth_discussion Copysan (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 April 2008[edit]

Resolved

A userbox about religious belief is going to be deleted because of POV: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ashley_Y/Userbox/Believes_in_Allah. Note: I am personally *for* the deletion, but this comment [4] made me realize this is also about censoring POV on userspace, so I am posting it here.

20 March 2008[edit]

There is a section that has swearing in it.

27 February 2008[edit]

There's a debate (now, a straw poll) to whether or not an image of an inkblot should be shown on the Rorschach inkblot test article or hidden with a disclaimer (see Talk:Rorschach inkblot test). нмŵוτнτ 23:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 February 2008[edit]

Numerous editors have renewed calls to censor images of Muhammad from Wikipedia in light of a widely publicized online petition. Debate is ongoing at Talk:Muhammad/images and a counter petition has been created. Kaldari (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests There is a discussion about whether to put Cannibal Holocaust on the main page, which has turned into a censorship discussion. Some editors feel it is inappropriate for the main page while others feel that the main page shouldn't be censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary policy of the United States It looks like factual information is being deleted particularly where anything about the workings of the Federal Reserve may surprise the public in a bad way. I hope conspiracy theorists don't decide to "help out", but students of serious economics would probably be highly welcomed to help make sure that pertinent facts remain in the article. Go get 'em! lol  :-D

2007[edit]

27 November 2007[edit]

Discussion on WT:DYK about the censorship of certain articles on DYK because they are about elections, "high current interest" and/or US centric.--STX 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Discussion is now found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Politics on the main page--STX 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14 October 2007[edit]

At the suggestion of an anon IP, a discussion on removing or hiding the nude image on Rage Against The Machine has begun again. An RFC has been filed, and all users are strongly suggested to contribute so as to reaffirm consensus on this matter. See discussion here. VanTucky Talk 04:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2007[edit]

In the Attack Sites case, the Arbitration Committee is considering a ruling which would delete all links and/or discussions involving any sites that "contain substantial negative or identifying information" about Wikipedia users-- even if those sites were reliable sources, notable sites, or necessary for NPOV/Verifiability. One site which has, in the past, had all its links deleted under the policy is Michael Moore's official site, when he criticized/outed a Wikipedia editor who had a conflict of interest.

If enacted, this ruling would substantially change the nature of Wikipedia. I would urge anyone with any opinons, pro- or con- to be participate in civil, thoughtful discussions of the issues involved. Even though this is not a vote, let's be mindful of the implications of Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Alecmconroy 08:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 August 2007[edit]

Discussion is ongoing on Talk:Justin Berry regarding the inclusion of certain content in the article. Content was permanently deleted by an admin per WP:BLP twice, and reverted by another admin once. In this case, source criticism of Berry is challenged due to an assertion of unreliable sources. --Ssbohio 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9 July 2007[edit]

There is currently an AFD underway for the Rusty Trombone article. To me, this nomination stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT censorship of a sex act. VanTucky (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 July 2007[edit]

Please see User:Miller17CU94/In defense of free speech, an essay that supports free speech, opposes the Fairness Doctrine, and expresses concerns how far American politicans may go to censor unpopular ideas that may include the Internet, including Wikipedia.

10 May 2007[edit]

The situation at Rage Against the Machine has been going on for a while. Basically, Rage did a protest on stage against censorship - the protest was against censorship, and the content included them standing on stage for 15 minutes stark naked, with duct tape over their mouths, and the letters "PMRC" (Parents Music Resource Center - a censorship group) painted across their chests. All well and good, and there is a picture of the protest to stress the point. Of course, the picture is somewhat shocking to the average viewer who just happens to be browsing Wikipedia, but the problem starts when people start to remove it. The average IP removing it doesn't matter, can be put back straight away and no one cares, but now there are a few people seriously debating the topic on the talk page. The rules clearly state that Wikipedia is not censored for children and that nudity is allowed if it is relevant to the article, which this more then is (WP:CENSOR). Also see the quote:

"While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted."

All in all, the picture has a clear place on Wikipedia, and does not break any rule - the picture itself is encyclopedic, and removal or distortion of the image is clear censorship. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There was a dicussion and the result was the keep the photograph. Someone put the dicussion under Talk:Rage Against the Machine/Archive 1 and took it off the main talk page. —User:Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been plenty of discussions (you probably refer to the biggest one thus far), but there are often people who come along, removing it, thinking they're doing a good job; and so every now and then, more thoughts of new votes for the removal come up. Just pointing out to any and all to keep an eye out. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To my watchlist it goes... VanTucky 23:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image appears to have been deleted from the wiki entirely. Anyone know how to recover it/have another copy to upload? Mrobfire 22:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a copyrighted image without a fair use rationale. Either find an appropriate free image, or find one you can making a compelling fair use case for. WilyD 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It did have some sort of rationale, but the section was blanked by an anon four months ago. The image was never tagged with {{rfu}} anyway, so I have just restored it. Prolog 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, any deleting admin should be able to obviously see that a perfectly good rationale exists. It's exactly adjacent to the scene in question on the band's article. All you have to do is simply add the rationale instead of deleting it by knee-jerk reaction. It's not that hard. VanTucky 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8 May 2007[edit]

There's a really intersting debate ongoing about the AACS encryption key controversy. Basically, there is a short string of characters that may or may not be illegal to publish under US law-- now people are posting all over the internet. The ongoing debate is "Should Wikipedia publish the number?".

People here might be interesting in discussion, but please don't just "votespam" or start edit-warring, or do anything else that makes notice boards like this sometimes problematic. People should read WP:KEYSPAM for the opinions on simplely adding the offending number, rather than discussing. --Alecmconroy 17:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

29 April 2007[edit]

I have a sandbox on my userpage which was proposed for deletion. Despite the fact that "deletionist" camp cheated in first discussion (the person who proposed deletion participated at discussion also with his sockpuppet), the majority was against deletion and my sandbox was kept. After it, I made improvements on it, but my sandbox was proposed again for deletion. I have to mention that in 4 days nobody else supported the deletion proposal, I proved that parts of my sandbox were used in Wikipedia articles, however the discussion is not closed.

I think all those proposals for deletion of my sandbox are part of a harassment campaign against me, related also with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence .

Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven_of_Transnistria_%282nd_nomination%29 and give your input. Thanks.--MariusM 18:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28 March 2007[edit]

Photos requested for Anal sex to replace the uninformative current images. --CA387 06:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8 March 2007[edit]

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 March 2007[edit]

Y'all might be interested in commenting on this proposed guideline: Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion. -- Kendrick7talk 06:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16 February 2007[edit]

"Debate" over whether or not to include images on the Muhammad article. The discussion took place on the article's talk page, while mediation has also been ongoing. I find it rather sad that there is even a debate over this, and quite interesting that the points brought up by pro-censorship users could apply to a vast array of other articles. Mainly, they state that all images of Muhammad are "fake". --Hojimachongtalkcon 02:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9 February 2007[edit]

Linkimage on Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

A user editing from several dynamic IP's that originate from Houston, Texas keeps reverting the inline image on Pearl necklace (sexuality) to a {{Linkimage}}, despite the fact that this has been contested by several editors and lacks consensus. Needless to say that one of the main reasons to avoid the linkimage template is that Wikipedia is not censored. As this user ignores discussion and refuses to communicate, I'm attempting to engage other editors in discussion through this noticeboard. The discussion is at Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality)#Linkimage discussion for the new image. Prolog 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8 February 2007[edit]

David Barton[edit]

Some zealous editor is attempting to do a white-wash job on David. David has been the subject of a number of articles stating essentially that he makes up quotes to stick in the mouths of the founding fathers. When challenged on his quotes he can't cite his sources. He has been basically side-lined out of the conservative camp, because of this controversy, and that should be clearly presented on his page imho. Wjhonson 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17 January 2007[edit]

Use of Swastika on templates/pages related to Dharmic religions[edit]

There is a long-running debate on whether non-related, but somewhat similar symbols, which pre-date the version used by the Nazis can be used on WP -or if they are "too offensive". See here. It is now spilling over into the Jainism templates. <<-armon->> 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006[edit]

7 December 2006[edit]

POV/bias/non neutrality/crazy[edit]

Well, I've been engaged in a kind of minor edit war centering around the article on adolecence, which a group of people constantly revert. Namely. the shabby section on teen sexuality...

As if it weren't bad enough... see for yourself! adolescence I've tried to add in text to make it more nuetral and provide purely scientific facts etc. until the dispute can be resolved as the wikipedia article is #1 on a google search for adolescence and thus i'm worried that if a teenager or parent looking for advice would be frightened to hell after reading just a few LINES of it. Stating such things as 'teenage sexual relations are merely hook-ups' most of which are by a leonard sax whose book i've been told to be WP:BE BOLD and read (It's an old tome and i don't want to seek it out just to prove that the article shouldn't have 97% of teen sexuality links and info being from abistinence groups and leonard sax....)

I've also placed neutrality tags like many people before me who've noticed the problem and yet, someone removed them and the person was somehow not listed in the log oddly enough... --___-- I'm trying to keep my cool but it's not that easy, i'm a new user and I jonied mainly because of the bias etc. that surrounds wikipedia articles on sexuality.

Another concern is sexual addiction and pornography addiction Help would be GRATEFULLY APPRECIATED!!! I can't fight these censors on my own and your help is needed! Nateland 11:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 December 2006[edit]

Fair Use images pollcy[edit]

The Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 which states "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." This is un-fair and should be changed we need to take this to the attention of wikipedia staff to change the pollcy. I shall also bring this to the attention of WP:AMA Thank You, Cocoaguy (Talk) 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? It's against the law to use fair use images in a non-fair use way, which use on user pages most certainly is not. -Amarkov blahedits 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use law being "unfair" has nothing to do with censorship I'm afraid. This whole section should probably be deleted unless someone has a complelling example of actual censorship happening. Kaldari 02:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 December 2006[edit]

I'm not sure if this applies here, because it's not about an article, so tell me if I'm in the wrong place.
At the reference desk there is a very heated discussion going on regarding the growing problem of people deleting other people's posts. The central problem here (imo) is that the huge number of edits on the ref desks (close to 1000 per day - yes, that's one thousand) makes it impossible to keep track of deletions, so deletionism should be kept on a very short leash (unless there were a better way to keep track of alterations to existing posts). A major issue is if the ref desk should be treated as an article or a talk page, but there seems to be some concensus that it is Wikipedia's general talk page. Be warned, the discussions are extremely lengthy. A first one at the present unarchived talk page is Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Unilateral censorship, after which several others followed (see also Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Funny answers), but after Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk the discussions really took off. DirkvdM 08:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 November 2006[edit]

There is a vote at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#The_table_of_contents regarding recent rearrangements to the article, which have pushed all non-critical views to a misnomered final section, while attempting to make it appear as if the first two sections are actually balanced. I only found your Wikiproject yesterday, but I am terribly outnumbered by pro-Israel editors, even an admin, who are eager to change and remove facts to begin with. Once the balance is tipped should they win this vote, they will only grow more emboldened. Please help. -- Kendrick7talk 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, the usual suspects have arrived and are voting for the other side. I know the old saying there is no cabal, but this group seems to be the exception. Another user, User:Hossein.ir, has recently complained to me of similar flocking behavior on Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, where a section was repeated deleted until this group got their way. He came to me as if I could do anything, and I'm not sure what to do anymore. If I'm not just shouting into the void, I am open to suggestions from more experienced wikipedians. -- Kendrick7talk 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could stop using this as a place to get more people on your side in a content dispute? Because no matter how you cast it, I have seen that page, and it is a pure content dispute. Isn't there a warning somewhere that frivolous complaints that evil old-timers are censoring you will lead to more evil old-timers coming against you? -Amarkov blahedits 04:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, but I have accomplished no such thing, as far as I know. I guess I am just not as clever as everyone else here, and all the devious souls who have come before me daring to ask for help at this forum. I've grown tired of daily defending that article, on a subject I could at this point care less about, against repeated deletions of information. By all means, sit back in your rocking chairs and watch as the article is slowly destroyed. I seem to have confused you all with someones else. -- Kendrick7talk 05:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did. Sorry, but this isn't the article dispute noticeboard. The title is "Wikipedians against censorship", not "Wikipedians against what you view as bad reasoning in a content dispute". -Amarkov blahedits 05:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 November 2006[edit]

Categories for users born in years that would imply they are under 13 are being discussed at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, following deletion because of incompatibility with Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_6#Template:User_Child. Amarkov babble 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians for more history on the issue highlighted above. -- Jeff G. 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30 October 2006[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family members appearing in adult movies where the reason proposed for discussion was a value judgement (essentially a request for censorship) rather than a matter of Wikipedia policy. I've cited the relevant part of WP:NOT. Barno 17:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 October 2006[edit]

Following the deletion of User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery in this AFD, several other userspace galleries containing pictures with nudity etc. have been nominated for deletion. It has been suggested that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery should be included in this deletion also.

10 October 2006[edit]

A consoring proposal to move blue balls to vasocongestion which is less offensive and less accurate. Davodd 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has been made that all children should be prohibited from editing because Wikipedia is not censored.

24 September 2006[edit]

The articles Iskcon, A._C._Bhaktivedanta_Swami_Prabhupada (founder of said group), as well as related articles are being censored on a regular basis by Hare Krishna devotees. This includes removing links and information they deem unacceptable. Sfacets 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22 September 2006[edit]

The proposed policies at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy have impications for censorship, with one proposal advocating blocking children who do not agree to be censored.

17 August 2006[edit]

Do members know about the attempt by a former employee of Wired Magazine to censor information regarding the company's use of the Zippies to pump the magazine's hotwired news service? The whole thing seems to have turned into a revert edit war, with this person Ethnopunk 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any censorship here, this looks like someone with an obsession for an old Wired story in a revert war with someone equally set in their way. An admin will probably pick this up. Lomedae talk 09:30, August 19, 2006 (UTC)

It's not merely an "Old Wired Story", it's about marketing and the history of online media. Wired used the Zippies to market a host of online services, including various bots. The reason the story is being censored, is that nobody got paid even though this went past fairness to outright abuse of a public movement of techno-kids touted by New Times and other papersEthnopunk 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

2 August 2006[edit]

A user [5] is conducting a survey on his talkpage to "understand if Koenraad Elst could be cited as a valid non biased source for the 2002 Gujarat violence, Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi articles. .... Can we include Koenraad Elst's comments as a valid NPOV factual/news source? Please highlight with your comments on why we should and why we should not? Concise and responding to these questions.I will only allow the first para of your responses here." [6]

I see this as a badly veiled attempt at censorship. By censoring Koenraad Elst from the Ayodhya related articles, one of the most important authorities on the Hindu side of the Ayodhya debate would be effectively silenced. The whole conducting of such a "survey" on wikipedia is just a replaying of the old Galileo affair, IMO it reeks of censorship, hate-mongering and attempted character assasination. Read the first 3 paragraphs of this link [7] of a chapter by Elst to see a similar example. Or this link [8]. The use or non-use of a source or quote must be decided case by case, and according to WP:NPOV both sides of a debate can be quoted, not only the Muslim/Marxist side. This however is just an attempt to censor the Hindu side of the debate. --Soparnos 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 June 2006[edit]

I thought that everybody here would like to know that the Category: Wikipedians by politics and all its subcategories are proposed for outright deletion. I believe this is a major form of censorship of members' beliefs and may also be a dangerous precedent for the deletion of other categories, including the very category of Wikipedians Against Censorship!

So, I think this major notion which is currently under debate is worth our attention and I strongly recommend that everybody read the on going discussion and voting on the issue, form their own opinion, and make their voice heard before it is too late! Tal :) 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This is not the appropriate venue for this. This project is about censorship in articles, not about people's crusades to keep their userpages and social networks
  2. Your notice is non-neutral, which is at the very least questionable, and possibly a blockable offence. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my response to the above accusation see the talk page. Tal :) 16:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

25 May 2006[edit]

All the people who have signed up to the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members between April 1st and May 22 have been removed. Josie dethiers 13:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 May 2006[edit]

Please sign this page if you are against censorship of userboxes on Wikipedia. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fredil_Yupigo/CAUBXD. Help us fight abusive admins trying to silence us. --GorillazFan Adam 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 May 2006[edit]

  • I am concerned that editors on Juan Cole are resorting to censorship. Please see talk page of that article. elizmr 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 April 2006[edit]

4 April 2006[edit]

  • Wikipedia_talk:Censorship. As the original, better policy did not manage to find consensus I revised it to accomodate some forms of censorship and the revised version is now open for voting. Please make your opinions heard there. Thank you! Loom91 08:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 April 2006[edit]

  • The Game, an article about a well-known topic, is up for restoration. It would be good if this article was uncensored. Sasha Slutsker 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not appear to be a example of censorship, but a debate about notability and encyclopedic merit. Kaldari 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 March 2006[edit]

  • Straw poll at Talk:Lolicon regarding linking a drawing vs. displaying it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since no one is proposing censoring Wikipedia, this entry seems inappropriate here. I see one editor has voted who has never posted to the talk page. I presume he come over because of this call for votes. -Will Beback 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This project was formed as a side effect of Autofelatio. Readers of this project are well aware of our policy with respect to linkimage. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

****For anyone involved in the lolicon article image fresco: The disputed image on the article was deleted on the sole decision of a single adminstrator. This issue is currently in WP:RFC for the adminstrator's action right now, which can be found [here] Never mind, matter is over. The authority figure has already spoken. --Jqiz 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 March 2006[edit]

Also note that that user has been banned: WP:LOBU. 68.39.174.238

18 March 2006[edit]

14 March 2006[edit]

  • Controversy in Talk:Justin Berry has largely subsided. Reverts of attempts to rebuild the article have ceased, and edits to the new version have mainly focused on better sourcing. HolokittyNX 13:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the controversy was over the temporary (now indefinite) banning of User:Rookiee, author of the original article, for comments on Talk:Justin Berry which did not violate policy.
(Link to admin notice board discussion)
Upon review of User Talk:Neutrality, it also appears that Neutrality has not responded to admin Theresa Knott's email of 11th March concerning this block, despite having time to make 76 Wiki edits since 11th March.
HolokittyNX 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The block of user Rookiee hs been lifted by admin User:Zscout370 (see block log). HolokittyNX 06:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2006[edit]

  • Justin Berry article is in an edit-war over how much sensitive information to include about a living person. (original notice is still availabe on talk) ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Justin Berry The reason given by admin for the removal of the original article was a complaint by Mr. Berry, apparently concerning the sexual orientation of the article's author. HolokittyNX 13:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Justin Berry The reason given was "I'd like to see this article totally rewritten by uninvolved wikipedians." Metta Bubble puff 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if the above implies that TheresaKnott was responsible for the deletion of the original article or subsequent WP:OFFICE actions. She was not. I was trying to avoid pointing fingers at an individual, but I guess I should clarify the situation. The original article was deleted by Jimbo Wales, and the above quote by Metta Bubble is his stated reason. HolokittyNX 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

05 March 2006[edit]

25 March 2006[edit]

20 Feb 2006[edit]

18 Feb 2006[edit]

  • The Electronic Frontier Foundation userbox has been speedily deleted under a bogus interpretation of CSD T1. Rogue 9 14:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 Feb 2006[edit]

  • The "user freespeech" template is up for deletion, just on the grounds that no one is using it. Herostratus 08:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the {{Freespeech}} template that's up for deletion, not {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}. I created the {{Freespeech}} template back in December, and I recently saw that nobody was using it, so I nominated it for deletion. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16 Feb 2006[edit]

  • I nominated MediaWiki:Bad image list for deletion as I believe it's only useful as a form of censorship and has little impact on the ability of vandals to vandalise. Gerard Foley 22:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's being voted on here

31 Jan 2006[edit]

29 Jan 2006[edit]

ALERT This issue is expanding in scope. Argument being presented is because image may be illegal in some country, it must be linkimaged. This will have broadreaching effects on the encyclopedia, as it quickly expands to block religious images and articles due to rules in Iran (and many, many, other countries), articles about neo-nazi's and holocaust denial due to rules in Germany, and articles generally due to rules in China. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an inaccurate summary of the situation, as legal issues were not the primary consideration. I had thought that parties agreed to not label legitimate editing as "censorship". -Will Beback 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 Jan 2006[edit]

  • An article, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, is being considered for deletion. The movie would plainly be offensive to Muslims. A member of a group called The Muslim Guild put it up for deletion consideration. This user, Irishpunktom, sadly enough, claims to be a member of Wikipedians against censorship. I would encourage all members of this group to look at the article and give your opinions on whether or not this is an attempt at censorship. this article's entry Nortonew 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German Wikipedia has come under legal pressure not to reveal the full surname of a deceased hacker in his Wikipedia article: Tron (hacker) (aka Boris Floricic). A preliminary injunction has prohibited German redirect page wikipedia.de from redirecting to the German edition of Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 Jan 2006[edit]

05 Jan 2006[edit]

04 Jan 2006[edit]

2005[edit]

31 Dec 2005[edit]

Yes, also make sure you see Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Comments_and_Voting, where a vote is being conducted on userbox policy. Let's stop censorship! Ronline ✉ 08:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I come down on the opposite side of this debate. I believe this is an article-space focused project, and not a use-space focused one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28 Dec 2005[edit]

  • I figured I'd let everyone here know about the new stable versions policy proposal which seeks to restrict the freely-editable nature of Wikipedia by protecting articles once they are deemed to be "stable" and moving them to a separate namespace. This policy represents a structural change in the open nature of Wikipedia, and inhibits the freedom of users - even logged-in ones - in instantly updating an article, since openly-editable versions of articles will be called "working drafts" under the new proposal. For me, as a liberal Wikipedian, the proposed policy is quite unacceptable. While not exactly amounting to censorship, stable versions makes Wikipedia much more elitist and therefore much more biased towards deletionism/censorship. You can express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Stable versions. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24 Dec 2005[edit]

  • {{User democrat}} - A logo for the Democratic Party is trying to be censored under the guise of copyright issues when an actual lawyer BD2412 said there's likely no reason to fear any retribution even if there was a reason to fear retribution since legal action against Wikipedia would be a horrible PR gaffe for the party regardless. karmafist 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
karmafist, I urge you to read Wikipedia's guidelines concerning the use of copyrighted works as "fair use". User pages (where most user boxes are used) may not have copyrighted works as "fair use". Templates (of any kind) may also not have copyrighted works as "fair use". This is not censorship, but a policy set in place by Wikipedia to make it accessable world wide (beyond US copyright laws), encompassing as many nation-wide copyright policies as possible. TCorp 17:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 Dec 2005[edit]

27 Oct 2005[edit]

  • Bushytails, the editor who brought information about Strapon Dildoes to the Main Page, is now up for Administratorship. Unfortunately, some have opposed him just for this bold and uncensored action. Whether you vote for him or not, please let the opposition know that information should WP:NOT be censored no matter where it is on Wikipedia, and those who try to spread information should not be punished for their attempts. Karmafist 02:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

23 Oct 2005[edit]

  • Hogtie bondage - debate about whether or not to include images of hogtie bondage that include nudity. Kaldari 19:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

18 Oct 2005[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship/Notice_board_archive&oldid=1144122498"