Forum:Proposal to unban Walrusman9

This proposal is to unban Walrusman9, who was blocked indefinitely by Michaeldsuarez for supposedly uploading pornographic content. On the banned template on Walrusman's user page, the reason he is said to be banned is for "Uploading inappropreciate images with semi-nudity". A message on his user page reflects this same thing. However, I examined the image, and I have to object to the declaration that this is semi-nudity. Even if it is semi-nudity, there are no grounds for an infinite ban or, really, any ban at all. I saved this image and uploaded it to ImageShack, and it can be viewed here.

As you can see, the image depicts two women in somewhat of a sexual clothes. However, they are both wearing undergarments, and any body parts (breasts, etc.) that could be considered by some as offensive and by our policies as a violation of policy are not shown. Now, the only way this user could have been banned forever because of an image like this is if there was pornography. According to the Wikipedia Pornography article, pornography "is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer".

Now, the keyword in that definition is "explicit". Let's take a look at the Wikipedia article on sexually explicit material. According to that article, "Sexually explicit material...presents sexual content without deliberately obscuring or censoring it." Here's the key point in that: "obscure or censoring". The women in this image are both wearing some form of clothing (however scarce it may be) to cover body parts that would need to be obscured or censored. Therefore, according to that definition, that image is not sexually explicit. If it is not sexually explicit, it does not constitute pornography.

In the interest of giving a clear definition by Wikipedia's standards, here's another part of what constitutes something that is sexually explicit: "Visual exposure of female breasts are considered mildly explicit, the penis or vulva and surrounding pubic hair are widely considered sexually explicit, and unobscured sexual intercourse universally so." This image does not show any of these things, so once again it is not sexually explicit and, therefore, does not constitute pornography.

With the definition out of the way, I'm turning towards our Content policy. The third content limitation in that policy is pornography, and that's what constitutes an infinite ban. However, I have ruled out the idea that this image is pornographic, so therefore that does not apply. Because of that, I will turn to the fourth limitation: sexuality. The parts about "overly erotic in nature" and the idea that it "only exists for titillation value" is a matter of opinion, and that's not really what this proposal is about anyway. That image is deleted, so therefore we don't need to debate that part.

What I will start with is this passage: "Images with a scarcity of clothing should be in good taste and used sparingly, not splashed all over the article. Descriptions of sexual activity should be preferably avoided, but mild sexuality is allowed if tagged appropriately. Images/detailed descriptions of sex are not mild. Err on the side of caution here. Otherwise, the interpretation of "mild" and "good taste" will be left to a neutral administrator."

This image did have a sacrcity of clothing. It was also used sparingly, not splashed all over an article. I would personally consider this mild sexuality, so really the Sexuality template should have been used. Continuing, the passage says that "images...of sex are not mild". This image does not depict sex, but rather two women kissing, albeit in a sexual pose. A pose, however, is not the same thing as a sexual act.

I will pass over the last sentence there, because as a neutral Administrator Michaeldsuarez had the right to delete the image. However, it's the ban that we are discussing here. Because this was not pornography, as stated above, the ban was unjustified. If you read the introduction to the Content policy, you will see that it says "violation of these policies will first result in a warning and a request to change or remove the content". This was Walrusman's first violation of this policy. Therefore, he should have received a warning and it should have been requested that he get rid of the image. Instead, he was given an instant ban and a kick out the door for good. This should not stand.

Bringing this back the beginning, and using everything that I have stated above, I am proposing the immediate unbanning of Walrusman9 due to a lack of understanding as to what constitutes pornography and a misinterpretation of policies because of that by an Administrator. Because Walrusman does not have an expiration date on his ban, and because there is no set policy for how long something like this needs to last for, I will say that this discussion/voting will last for one week (until October 21st), unless it needs to be lengthened or shortened. All matters of the Voting policy apply. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unban (+1)

 * 1) As the proposer, and based on all of the evidence as noted above. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Please use this section of the forum thread for discussion. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)