User talk:Xchanter

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xchanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I had no idea that this community was like this. I have expressed my opinions on why I felt that the images on particular sites should be removed, and your site has been rude to me as if I was a luddite. I do not agree that technology/progress equates with this encylopedia being unpublishable, and, while I have expressed myself reasonably have been insulted and then blocked. I do not understand why you are defending the right of this site to be unusable by children. I feel, quite strongly, that this site has been hijacked. I look forward to you making your position clear.

Decline reason:

All things considered, I'm getting the impression that your behavior has been disruptive. Please note that Wikipedia is not censored, and that incivility, personal attacks, and legal threats all have their own implications. I'd encourage you to keep a cool head and pursue the dispute resolution process when the block expires. -- Luna Santin 07:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note for reviewing admin: The initial version of the unblock request contained another legal threat. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, anatomy, and civility

As you have been told elsewhere, Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for minors. I understand that you feel strongly that it should be, but I encourage you to consider the implications of this. If it is, then the next step is to censor photos that show women's faces because that violates the law in some Muslim countries. Also, any diagrams showing a swastika would need to be removed from any articles on WWII because they are illegal in Germany. Wikipedia is an international project, and censorship (much less the dramatically incorrect reading of the laws you have exhibited) is not appropriate as it is unenforceable or practical on the international stage. Finally, some of the messages you have left on the subject have been borderline incivil. Also, shouting or screaming (typing in all caps to emphasize) is strongly discouraged. I hope you will reconsider the nature of your contributions to the project going forward. This appears to be an almost single purpose account on a 'crusade' of sorts, I hope this is not the case. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what country are pictures of erect male genetalia allowed to be shown to minors, sir?

Xchanter 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter[reply]

Your interest in male genitalia and children is not the issue here, being civil to your fellow wikipedians is. In regards to the rest of the conversation, since you have not answered the rest of my question, whyever should I pay any attention to yours? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You believe, sir, that I am a Nazi? Not that it will help, because, frankly, you have been the one who has accused and not answered, but my great grandfather was a Rabi. I completely understand your discussion of where the slope should be defined, and I am saying: at pictures of erect male genetalia. To place the words back in the public domain (for your response was certainly rude, and I would ... if we were in person), I do not believe pictures of erect penises should be shown to children. That you disagree is to your own morality.

I will leave you alone if you do the same.

My best wishes,

Xchanter 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter[reply]

I think you may have responded to the wrong person, where's the nazi talk and rudeness stuff you're talking about? If you'd like some assistance navigating Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help, but I'll need a little more information. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir-

So apparently, this is your site. You have the ability to insult me, not respond to me, and put your insults back on in the public domain. And you call me a Nazi.

Respond reasonably.

Xchanter 06:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter[reply]

You still haven't shown me where I called you a Nazi. I've been nothing but civil to you, I'm beginning to suspect your motivations. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be perfectly clear: a man saying another man is interested in male genatalia and children is fighting words (bad english, but the point is there). You were deliberately rude to me and, frankly you can f*** o**. Should you have the power with this site to remove/destroy my presence, then you had best: do so; attempt a different tone; leave me alone. I herein provide you that opportunity.

My best,

Xchanter 06:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter[reply]

You have one final chance to provide evidence that I called you a Nazi (you've repeated that claim more than once). I cannot simply 'leave you alone' when you're launching attacks and intimidating other users, that's just not possible. I await your response. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've continued to blank your talk page of warnings even after being warned not to. That indicates to me that you are operating in bad faith, and puts your intimidation and harassment of other users in a new light. If you feel this block is not warranted, you can request an external review by another administrator using the unblock template. Also, you may continue to respond here but you will not be able to edit other pages for the next 24 hours. Your block may be extended upon further review, your conduct is the determining factor. Disruption of the project (including but not limited to your use of intimidation) is not acceptable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is pretty telling too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility, legal threats and pornography

Hi. As Chairboy, pointed out, edits like this one [1] are discouraged. Please keep your cool and avoid misrepresenting someone answering a question about anatomy as someone "talking about sex with children". Moreover these comments you left on two user talk pages [2] [3] are unacceptable. They are slanderous and have undertones of legal threats towards other editors. I do understand that you oppose the inclusion of pictures of genitalia in articles about them and respect that opinion. However you have to understand that the overwhelming majority of editors and readers of Wikipedia disagree and I very much doubt that your shouting at everyone will change many minds. If you do not want your kids to see pictures of penises on Wikipedia, then just make sure they don't read these pages of the project. But you might also need to prevent them from reading a number of reference books in their school library: any modern book on anatomy will have similar pictures. It's not pornography, it's education. Pascal.Tesson 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vagina/Pornography/Children

Before the situation worsens, I'll do as the above user did and remind you that we are not censored. The facts, regardless of how obscene, will be part of Wikipedia. It has also come to my attention that you have been "reminding" people of the law regarding child pornography or something of that sort. This may be construed as a a legal threat, and most certainly as a case of incivility given the way in which you've voiced your opinions. So, before this gets worse (maybe resulting in a penalty, I'd ask you to contact me or any other editor in good standing for a way to resolve the issue, rather than continuing in the same manner. AdamBiswanger1 03:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I almost agree with you. However the manner in which you are addressing the situation, namely by writing in all caps and suggesting legal recourse is what you need to address. You can try to persuade people to your viewpoint, but please do so civilly. Your best option is probably to argue that this is not censoring, or that this is a case in which the obscenity is so great that a minor measure to make it invisible to children would be proper. AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also chime in here. As a sexuality educator, I know fully well that what I ave said here on Wikipedia, and the articles I've edited, can not get me arrested in the US, nor do I believe they would get me arrested in the UK. I fully and strongly support children of all ages talking to their parents about sex and sexuality, and I'm also strongly in favor of children and teens receiving the information they need to make good healthy sexual decisions. Furthermore, if you do not want your children to have access to this information, it is up to you to put the appropriate blocks in place in your child's life to ensure that they do not get this information. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia or its volunteer editors to do your parenting for you. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: You might want to check out Citizendium, which is a more regulated, expert-based version of Wikipedia that is in its initial stages. Check it out AdamBiswanger1 04:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of erect genitalia

Well, I don't know about the United States education system, but back here in Canada, all teenagers have sex-ed classes and the textbooks all have pictures. Like I said, it's about education and using pictures to illustrate the subject of the article. And if you are worried about your underage children having access to pictures of genitalia, you should realize that, 21st century and all, it'll happen no matter what you do. Most likely, they won't go to Wikipedia but to Google [4]. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this friendly comment of yours [5], let me explain carefully what I said: it is slanderous to insinuate that someone is doing something illegal by answering an honest question about sex, even by a younger person. You are equating these actions with a form of child abuse. With all due respect, I think you are blowing this whole thing way out of proportion. Pascal.Tesson 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that it's ok to answer questions of a sexual nature asked in good faith by children, so long as the tone is proper. Moreover, the law in your country also says that this is legal. Even Dr. Ruth answers teenagers' questions. Sexual education classes in the United States also are commonplace and involve the showing of slides, as this account will tell you. You can find a detailed account of policies in various countries in the sex education article on Wikipedia. You seem to think I (and most editors involved in the Penis article) are willfully perverting young children's minds but I believe we are all acting in good faith by assuming that if a child decides he wants to read the penis article, then he also wants to see what a penis looks like. Should a ten year-old want to know more about the penis? Maybe not, but that's a parent's concern, not a concern for someone writing an encyclopedia. The quality and tastefulness of the pictures that are actually being used is debatable and is often debated on the talk pages of these articles. You are free and in fact encouraged to participate in these discussions, so long as you can keep your cool and understand that attacking other editors is not acceptable. Best, Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. The link I gave above is to a university site but it's an account of the author's experience of sex education in high school. And it does say

" One of the most memorable classes in my sex ed course was the highly anticipated day when our teacher would bring in the STD slides. For a full period, the teacher went from slide to slide, depicting the horrible symptoms that accompany a wide range of sexually transmitted diseases. Although I would never again want to subject myself to the viewing of disturbing, infected genitals, the fact that most students will never forget those slides show how effective they were. "

As for the fact that sex-ed books in the US use graphic images, don't trust me, trust reliable sources like [6]

"Third, what the religious right is railing against is not sex education per se as much as how it is taught. While this may sound like sophistry, a perusal of some public school sex ed manuals would be an eye opener for Mr. Jarvis. Most 5th grade manuals come complete with descriptions and pictures of not just garden variety sex (that I see no harm in exposing children of that age to) but also homosexuality, trans gender issues, masturbation, oral and anal sex, as well as the necessary instruction in various birth control methods."

You can probably do the research on your own: sex ed manuals routinely have pictures of genitalia. Now I'm not saying that this is not a contentious issue but the fact is that these books exist and are used. Pascal.Tesson 05:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

It is inappropriate for you to blank warnings and context from your user talk page at this juncture. I have reverted your changes, please do not delete anything from here for the time being while your actions are being evaluated. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You have been extremely rude to other users without provocation. The lack of civility and courtesy you display reflects inappropriate behavior. I actually came to your talk page after reading various comments you had made with the intention of blocking you from Wikipedia; however, I see that you have already been blocked. Consider this further warning that such lack of basic courtesy will not be tolerated.

If you have questions about how Wikipedia works or feel you are not understanding something, I would be happy to help. However, you must treat other editors with civility and respect. The sort of belligerence and rudeness you’ve exhibited are not welcome here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Xchanter, your block will expire soon (or maybe it already has). Consider this an assurance that Wikipedia is not as rigid as it seems; you've touched on an issue dear to many, and that is censorship. Though unfortunately, "censorship" in terms of book burning and Big Brother has been woefully muddled with censorship in terms of nudity and obscenity, and the liberal mindset has been applied to the latter with as much absolutism and ferocity as the former. Hopefully that doesn't sound too bitter. But, I invite you to return, assuming that you tone down the incivility, and eliminate altogether the legal threats. Just browse around some discussion pages to get used to the pattern and tone of interaction between editors. AdamBiswanger1 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impartial note

If you believe that some Wikipedia content is inappropriate for your home, then the first solution is to install, upgrade, or change parameters on your parental control software. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an open edit site. Even though we revert vandalism quickly, there's a slim chance that an image of an erect penis might be displayed on any page at the moment your home computer downloads it. You might choose to select settings that lock out Wikipedia entirely and direct your children to one of Wikipedia's many mirror sites Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc, some of which primarily screen for family-friendly content. Durova 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back

Xchanter, my previous comments to you ranged from terse to sarcastic, and I'd like to apologize for that. Your concerns are legitimate even if your initial way of expressing them was, perhaps, unfortunate. While I wouldn't want to debate the issue itself on my Talkpage, I would be more than willing to help you if you have any questions about WP, or where and how to address the things that concern you. Good luck. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Due to your violation [7] of our policy reagrding no legal threats, I have blocked you indefinitely.--MONGO 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note: Being a pre-law student, I gotta tell you that you have no chance of legal success, in that Wikipedias use of questionable images is decidedly educational. There is no pornography or obscenity other than in learning about pornography and obscenity. Any images on this site are strictly for the edification, not gratification, of readers. Also, a child may legally view images of an erect penis or any other anatomical feature, so long as it is presented educationally. Hence sex-ed. Therefore, the information (and images) on this site are, by definition, not obscene or improper. AdamBiswanger1 21:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What were you thinking?

Did you really think that saying that you had contacted the attorney general's office did not constitute a legal threat? JoshuaZ 08:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]