Hello!
I would like to request some clarification and, if possible, a review regarding a ‘General content violation’ warning that I recently received following an internal investigation.
On August 26, I submitted a Wayspot nomination for an artistic memorial bench located at the local cemetery in my home town. The bench is painted with an artistic design featuring two outstretched hands, visually reminiscent of the well-known hand gesture from Michelangelo’s painting The Creation of Adam, together with Bible verses, including a passage from Jeremiah 31:3.
I considered the bench to be a potentially eligible point of interest because of its distinctive artistic design and because, in my view, it could encourage exploration of the location, particularly as the cemetery contains several other notable artistic and cultural features that exist independently of its function as a burial and memorial site. The nomination itself took quite a long time to receive a final decision despite having an Upgrade applied, and it was ultimately rejected for the following reasons: ‘The text or photo contains abuse, ridicule, or harassment of a specific person or group’ and ‘The photo submitted is from a third party source.’ The rejection on its own was not something I intended to dispute further. I do, of course, understand that eligibility can be interpreted differently, and I have no issue with a nomination simply being rejected if reviewers do not consider it eligible. However, I could not understand either of these rejection reasons. I personally took the submitted photograph myself, so it was not obtained from a third-party source. Likewise, I am not aware of anything on the bench that could reasonably be understood as abuse, ridicule, or harassment toward a person or group. The visible text consists of general religious/Biblical wording, including a passage from Jeremiah 31:3.
Now to the actual reason for this thread: Approximately one month after the nomination was rejected, I received an email informing me that, following an ‘internal investigation,’ my account had been flagged for a ‘General content violation’ in connection with this nomination. This is the part I am having difficulty understanding. I have attached photos of the nominated object as well as the email I received regarding the warning, so that the circumstances can be reviewed directly.
I would therefore appreciate it if someone could review this case and clarify what specifically constituted the content violation. Considering that the original nomination appears to have received rejection reports that do not seem to match the actual submission, the subsequent account warning following an internal investigation is particularly confusing to me. Hence, my intention with this post is to request a review of the enforcement action, as I currently do not understand or necessarily agree with the basis for the warning. If the warning is ultimately found to be justified, I will of course accept that outcome. However, I would like to understand what I may have done wrong, which rule was violated, and why this nomination resulted in an account-level warning for me.
At the moment, as mentioned above, the combination of the seemingly inaccurate rejection reasons followed by a later general content warning makes the situation difficult for me to understand. I would greatly appreciate any clarification, regardless of whether the review ultimately confirms or reverses the warning.
Thank you very much in advance for taking the time to look into my question and review the case, and have a nice day!