I stumbled upon this user who had this ¿pornographic? gravatar {link edited out}.

(Note that the Gravatar rating system seems to have failed in this case.)

While I, personally, think that such pictures are swell and would love to see them be allowed, my guess is that Stack Exchange sites want to maintain a more "family friendly" image? But I don't see a way to flag user profiles or gravatars.

So, appropriate action when such profiles are spotted?
Time to sue Gravatar back to the punch-card era?


The user's profile avatar has been changed from 07ded368f8cbe358ce04c259a3cd8236 to 012bd5f0815be2480925059b17be8376 by a moderator.

  • 5
    I'd say that one is barely offensive. Commented Jul 27, 2012 at 11:21
  • 4
    @kinokijuf you need to chill out about that user.
    – nhinkle
    Commented Jul 27, 2012 at 20:20
  • 2
    @kinokijuf That avatar is the logo for punk rock band Bad Religion. It hard to say it is offensive since the symbols involved are very simple to begin with.
    – iglvzx
    Commented Jul 27, 2012 at 20:52
  • @kinokijuf - There is absolutely nothing wrong with Kyle's avatar, see what iglvzx said...although it appears to have been changed. That's ridiculous.
    – Shinrai
    Commented Aug 9, 2012 at 22:56

1 Answer 1


Are sexually explicit Gravatars allowed?

Per our Content Policy:

Sexually Explicit Material. Accounts that use Stack Exchange to post sexually explicit or pornographic material, or links to it, will be suspended.

And Terms of Service:

Subscriber […] agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that […] is offensive […]

In this case, I've simply rolled back to a standard Gravatar.

What to do in the future?

Since we don't have an influence on Gravatar, I don't see how we can do anything else than just relying on users to flag this kind of content when they see it. Since you can't flag user profiles, just flag one of their posts or raise it on Meta (or chat).

If you want, you could try reporting the image on Gravatar – but I don't know their exact policies.

  • Okay consider it raised on meta. (^_^) Looks like (1) You dealt with it on this end, (2) Gravatar relies on users to self-rate their images, so (3) objectionable images are all on the user, according to Gravatar. Commented Jul 27, 2012 at 7:59
  • PS: According to that policy you should suspend the user too.?. (Although, since he was a drive-by user, of a single, low-view question, maybe delete him instead?) Commented Jul 27, 2012 at 8:03
  • In the case of that user, I highly doubt they will ever visit again – in fact, the account is even unregistered. I don't see any risk in not suspending them – it'd be a different case for regular or currently active users.
    – slhck
    Commented Jul 27, 2012 at 8:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .