Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Suggestion

In case it is decided that the image should be linked, would everyone agree to use {{linkimage|Autofellatio.jpg|Autofellatio is oral sex performed by a man on himself.}}, which looks like this:
{{linkimage|Autofellatio.jpg|Autofellatio is oral sex performed by a man on himself.}}
—Cantus…☎ 01:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Although I think the caption should be more along the lines of: "This image shows a man performing autofellatio." —Cantus…☎ 01:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "Do you want to be able to do this? Buy him a beer and maybe he'll let you!" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer not having to deal with trolls, but that's just idealism. —Cantus…☎ 23:52, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Canty. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see you're getting worried about the possible outcome, Timby. —Cantus…☎ 10:37, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too worried - it already survived when it was up on IfD. This little image has some fight in it left, methinks. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Can't someone who is good at editing images make some mosaic or other distortion over the guys glands like how they censor on TV? Sounds like a good compromise to me. Palestine-info 13:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to do that, what about the balls? TIMBO (T A L K) 19:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please, no. Let's keep that kind of nonsense on American network television. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They do that in Japanese network television. I believe, from what I understand, in Japanese porn as well. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That must be some horrible porn. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True, see Tubgirl. Doesn't mean we should. --SPUI (talk) 20:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's make sure that our porn is at least good porn. (unsigned)

Yep. Only the best for Wikipedia, I say. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ouroboros

It seems awfully unlikely to me, given the sources of ouroboros mythology, that it is in any way a symbol of autofellatio. No original research, please; either cite a reference for 'some people' or remove the image. --+sj +

There is a single reference online saying that Robert Nozick 'explores this idea in "Philosophical Explanations"' [1].

The external reference (David Lorton) also mentions the two concepts together. So this isn't original research. The two concepts have been associated from time to time. I know of no evidence of an ancient origin of this association, though it's not that implausible. Those ancient Greeks could get down and funky with the rest of them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course there's no evidence of the ouroboros historically being a "symbol of autofellatio", because it isn't. That random writers in the 20th century have "associated" the ouroboros and autofellatio says something about those random writers, not about the ouroboros. The test for inclusion in an encyclopedia shouldn't be whether something is "implausible" or not, but whether it can be documented. If no one can find such documentation, we ought not include this "factoid", especially as it is taken up and mirrored, making Wikipedia the source and primary purveyor of this "factoid" on the Internet—see how many of the Goggled "autofellatio ouroboros" hits use our exact weasel words on this. - Nunh-huh 23:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It didn't seem likely to me that Nozick talked about this at all (he's not that sort of writer), and not in Philosophical Explanations (it's not that sort of book). So I checked, and I can find nothing remotely like it. Looking at the external link, the reference to Nozick isn't to the claim about Ourobouros, but to the metaphysical theory that someone had linked it to. I think that the reference in the article should go. It's pretty preposterous, in any case. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

The Lorton reference makes this Ouroboros/autofellatio idea barely encyclopedic, but having the Ouroboros image at the top of the article is misleading, in my opinion. I am commenting out that image. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Lorton reference is to an interpretation of a single poem, in which he argues that because semen and spit are both mentioned, autofellatio is involved. It's not encyclopedic, it's an idiosyncratic reading of a single image in an Egyptian poem being interpreted thousands of years after it was written in a novel, eccentric manner. - Nunh-huh 00:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On censorship

Please stop saying that including a link is censorship, it's not. The link allows people to choose for themselves whether or not to view the image. Vacuum c 14:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Calling it censorship also implies that we're preventing some other group from communicating in some way. But we are the group, and we're deciding for ourselves whether we want to display this image on the article. Rhobite 14:21, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. - Mark 14:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. However, that doesn't make linking any less POV. I think it says something that the image was deemed acceptable at Images for Deletion (presumably based on its encyclopedic merit) yet could possibly be linked now because of its "offensiveness." I hope we don't play that game. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we all agree on this. However, even though I'm not thrilled with the picture, and seeing it once was more than enough for me, it's the trend I fear. If it is decided to remove this image frm the article itself, I fear that every time someone finds a picture they think offensive - say, a photo of a dead tree, from a _radical_ enviromentalist's POV, could possibly be offensive - they would pop it into a link rather than keep it inline. I, for one, find the prospect less than tempting.--TVPR 09:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Javascript?

Would it be desirable to make a Javascript that displays a box similar to Template:Linkimage, but when the link is clicked, the image is displayed inline? Vacuum c 21:57, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Or users who want to get funky could just get something like image-show-hide. I use it at work and it means I'm *always* work-safe.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The difference between my proposal and image-show-hide is that it doesn't require any action on the part of the viewer. Vacuum c 22:30, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, image-show-hide doesn't require any action on the part of Wikipedia, and it doesn't have any impact on viewers who have learned how to drive their browsers and don't want to have to go around clicking things just to see stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, including a link doesn't have any impact on users who would prefer not to see the image and don't want to go around installing software just to not see stuff. Go read ESR's [the luxury of ignorance]. Vacuum c 03:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think I prefer to require people who want special sauce to pour it on themselves. They're more likely to know what flavor. The article isn't going to help you here; esr's argument would be an argument against adding bells and whistles to Wikipedia, not for adding them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True. However, your route is more complex. In order for the (approx.) 30% of the population that would be offended by gay pornography like this image to avoid viewing it, they would have to visit an unrelated website and download and install software they haven't even heard of and must search for (including the Firefox browser for 95% that don't use it). This places it outside the realm of most computer users. In contrast, for people who wish to view the image, all it takes is one click. Vacuum c 00:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

My solution is not in any way more complex. It involves Wikipedia doing precisely nothing and leaving people to learn how to operate their browsers as they should have done prior to starting to use the web. All browsers can easily be made to turn on and off image downloads, I simply gave a method of making it even easier (a single click) using the world's fastest-growing browser.

Even better: whenever people complain about the image and demand that we do something about it, we gently remind them that the fault lies with the person who connected them to the internet but neglected to teach them how to use the web. This reminder would be public service that we, as an encyclopedia, should be proud to perform absolutely free. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So in order to delve into mathematics, one must learn calculus? I think not. Addition would surely suffice. Vacuum c 22:59, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's not a very good comparison. Modern web browsers are extremely easy to operate, it's not too much to ask that a person learn how to operate one before using the web, or at the very least, check his browser controls before complaining to content providers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll deadline

Please vote on whether this poll should have a deadline.

• Tony Sidaway has suggested (and the Wikipedia:Survey guidelines recommend) a deadline. He has suggested March 20, 2005, but is not wedded to that date. It was just about six weeks in the future when we were designing the poll.
• Cantus opposes any deadline.

Please vote. At least let us have consensus on whether there should be a deadline, otherwise we may not be able to agree on which option, if any, won the poll.

Currently 17 of 22 who voted favor a deadline rather than no deadline. (summary by Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC))

I propose to keep this poll open and, if there is still a pro-deadline 70%+ consensus on this poll by 20 March, 2005, both this poll and that one will be declared closed. There will be no winners; either we will hve consensus or we will not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No deadline, whichever option reaches 70% first

1. No. gcbirzan^talk 19:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) - I'd also favour a "70% or 6 weeks, whichever comes first" kind of thing.
2. No. Cantus…☎ 02:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - What if we reach the deadline and end up with a 50/50 result? A 70% assures this won't happen, no matter how long it takes. As an example, the polls at Template talk:Europe have been active for the past 8 months and are routinely closed when that 70% is reached.
3. No. MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 02:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - Wait to reach 70% for clear consensus.
4. No. — Dan | Talk 03:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Though 70% seems a bit high, and it's unclear which option will be the default if no consensus is reached.

   No consensus means just that: that there is no consensus. This poll is not to decide what to do, but to determine whether a consensus exists, or can be created, on what to do. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   Wrong. The poll is to decide what we should do with the image now. The poll's options are such that you won't get any kind of compromise via consensus or discussion. You either show the image or you don't. Period. —Cantus…☎ 11:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

   Please read and try to absorb Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. The intent of this poll is clear--to see if the initial straw poll, which was strongly in favor of a link, could be built into a consensus to link instead of inline. This poll, should it fail to build consensus, does not preclude the use of further polls to try to arrive at a consensus. Unless a consensus is built from a poll, it is highly unlikely (and would tend to go against Wikipedia history) that the poll would be taken as binding. This poll may or may not decide the fate of the image--depending on whether it is successful in building a consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

5. No I really don't want to see a one vote victory for either side. Geni 04:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. No I dislike deadlines--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the poll should have a deadline

1. Yes --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Yes. All our conclusions have deadlines. It doesn't mean they can't be changed later on, but we at least should come to a conclusion at some point. --Improv 17:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Yes. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Yes. There will never be a 70% consensus (as I write this, "Link" would need to get about 45 consecutive votes to achieve this). Flyers13 20:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Yes. I think it should be earlier though, like 27 Feb 2005. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 20:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Yes. March 20 is like a good deadline. Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-9 02:44 Z
7. Yes. 70% is a very high threshold, and if neither option ever reaches it then what's the default, the status quo? Or do we switch back and forth as one option or the other takes the lead? -- Curps 04:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   There is no default. If no consensus is reached after the deadline we all have to reconsider our positions in view of the fact that we have failed to reach a consensus on either option. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

8. Yes. All good things must come to an end. An endless poll is reminiscent of infinite loops and zombie processes. I too agree that we will never reach 70%. foobaz·✐ 04:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. Yes. Of course some decision must be made. A decision for no deadline is simply a tacit decision to keep the image - basically, it means that the image can only go if it reaches 70% in favor of linking. This is a zero sum game - a simple majority is ultimately the only way to decide this. john k 06:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   I don't believe a "yes" vote is a vote for "simple majority wins." If it's near a 50/50 split, there is obviously no concensus. Which is what the poll is intended to gauge, presumably. I understood it as "after an appropriately long amount of time, sort things out and come to a decision." TIMBO (T A L K) 06:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   And who makes that decision? Another poll? LOL. 70% is the best way to avoid this. Cantus…☎ 06:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

   If there's no consensus, some decision still has to be made. Arguing for 70% is simply arguing that the image should remain. The vote is clearly going to be close. If linking it wins by only a few votes, it seems absurd to keep it as it is because there is no consensus - there is no consensus for either option in such a situation, so why should the non-consensus position that received an absolute minority be the one accepted? john k 07:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   I think it's incorrect to approach this problem from the point of view that "a decision has to be made." There is no rule that says a decision has to be made--indeed if there is a Wikipedia rule it is that decisions are made and enforced by consensus. If there is no such consensus then no decision can be made. Editors should deal with the page as they see fit, although it would be foolish to completely ignore a near-consensus vote for either option. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   That's because you don't want any final decision to be made. You want to keep arguing and arguing that is POV to link the image until people get tired and go away. —Cantus…☎ 11:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

   That is absolutely false. As I've made plain prior to the poll, I'm happy with either an image or a link. I propose a deadline because this is recommended in Wikipedia:Survey guidelines and this was how the polls on Clitoris were managed. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and try to absorb its advice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   "Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and try to absorb its advice." I would advice that you do the same. —Cantus…☎ 11:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

   The funny thing is, I made that 70% proposition, and as you know, I deeply oppose the showing of the image. I'm aiming here for a strong consensus. If we reach a deadline and the vote is a split, any consensus will be weak, and therefore people will want to make another poll. Cantus…☎ 06:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

   Not necessarily. If, for instance, we could come to a consensus agreement that majority rules, even those who are defeated would agree that whatever reaches a majority was acceptable. Given that a 70% majority is highly unlikely, this seems to me the only fair way to settle it. john k 07:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   I think it's unlikely that we'd reach a consensus that majority rules. We make decisions by consensus on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   And how do you expect such a large group of people to reach a consensus? People in congress don't use consensus to get laws passed; yes, they discuss, but they ultimately vote, and majority wins. Same thing here. Establishing some sort of consensus with such a large number of people will be impossible and a vote and a clear winner are needed in this case. On the other hand, if this was a small issue about two or three people disagreeing with each other, then a consensus could be well be possible to achieve. Due to the large number of people involved in this, that will be impossible. —Cantus…☎ 11:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

   "People in Congress don't use consensus." This is not Congress. On Wikipedia we make decisions by consensus. Surveys are not used to decide "clear winners", they used to determine whether a consensus exists or can be built. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. In particular, I caution you against any attempt to hijack this attempt to build consensus and attempt to turn it into a winner-takes-all poll. If as seems to be the case a substantial minority opposes a link, then all we will be able to say is that we could not reach consensus over whether to inline or have a link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   But the large majority opted for not having that image there, and you want to be blind to that fact and do nothing because it suits your personal interests. That policy is flawed because it doesn't address issues where a large number of people is involved and where consensus, as the policy defines it, will be next to impossible to achieve. We can always change the policy. And of course this isn't congress; that was merely an example to illustrate a point. Don't take everything literally. —Cantus…☎ 11:37, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

   If you want to change the Wikipedia policy of making decisions by consensus, and instead impose majority rule, then please feel free to make that policy proposal in the correct forum. Meanwhile we will use this poll to see if a consensus can be built, according to Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   You are working under the premise that continuing to vote forever and leaving the image inline would constitute "not making a decision". But, in effect, that means that the image stays inline unless 70% say it shouldn't. But this means that all it takes to keep it is 30%+1. How is this fair? In situations where compromise is possible, of course consensus must be reached. But in zero sum situations, a clear standard should be set. For something like deletion, it should be a supermajority, but for content disputes a majority is the only fair way to resolve it. john k 00:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   No. We make decisions by consensus on Wikipedia, not by majority vote. Contrary to your claim, failure to reach consensus is not an endorsement of inlining the image. The image could be left inline, removed or linked, but all that the poll says is that there would be no consensus for any one of those three actions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

10. Yes. I'd much prefer that the image stay inline, so this vote may seem counterproductive. But you see, I feel strongly that the filibuster-esque suggestion of maintaining the poll until it reaches clear majority (i.e. indefinitely) is a suggestion to undermine the democratic principles of Wikipedia. LizardWizard 08:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
11. yes. — Davenbelle 08:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
12. Yes. As with other Wikipolls, a clear consensus is required to change the status quo, but we should allow ample time for such consensus to be reached. ADH (t&m) 08:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
13. Yes. There should clearly be a deadline, albeit not in the immideate future. This needs some time.--TVPR 08:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
14. Yes. Using some arbitrary super-majority as the goal seems absurd. --Calton 12:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
15. Yes. Majority should win, as the status quo is not exactly vital and the two sides are at complete cross-purposes. Vacuum c 22:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
16. Yes. & supermajority (perhaps 70%) is good; 31-69 range means no consensus, & it should move on to RfC or VP-policy. If it takes broader consideration to resolve it, the effort should probably be harnessed into working up a long-term policy such as i propose in #Other/Comments at point 8. --Jerzy(t) 07:15, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
17. Yes. Noisy | Talk 23:20, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
18. Yes. Yes support deadline of March 20, 2005 Trödel|talk 03:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Okay, as of now (11:15 UST on 9 February, 2005), 72% of those voting on this question want a deadline. Cantus, do you want to take that as a consensus, or do you want to set a deadline after which we count votes for and against having a deadline? :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we were to use a 70% on this poll, then we would be invalidating this very own poll. Oh the irony. You see now that the only way we will get anything done is by defining by mathematical terms who the winner is? —Cantus…☎ 11:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. Why would using the same standard that you propose for the main poll invalidate this poll? I'm quite happy to wait for a deadline on this poll if you prefer. I propose that we run this poll on whether to have a deadline on the main poll, until 20 February, 2005, to see if we have a consensus (to be determined as >=70% of all votes) to have a deadline on the main poll. If alternatively you wish to accept the current >70% of all votes as a consensus, that is fine too. Whatever floats your boat. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We can't use any of the standards we're deciding about on this poll to decide issues concerning this poll, because the standard itself has not yet being decided. We have to set an altogether different approach. —Cantus…☎ 11:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think we cannot use any of those standards? I'm perfectly happy to agree to either standard for the sake of the poll, and I see nobody else objecting. So take your pick. We can go for first to 70% (or whatever number you want to use) or else have a deadline and see if we have a consensus (again, name your favorite number) after that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. That would be like enforcing a law about enforcing laws to pass that very same law when that law has not yet passed. As I said above, we need to decide an altogether different approach to be used here. —Cantus…☎ 11:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm against a deadline basically because that 70% might be reached before that deadline. Being needlessly bound by a deadline when a clear decision has been made would be a waste of time. See poll below. —Cantus…☎ 12:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

If that's your basic objection then I have no objection to accepting first-to-70% with a deadline of 20 March. Abandoning the search for consensus, however, is out of the question. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll on how to interpret the outcome of the link/inline poll

Initiated by Cantus…☎ 12:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

This poll is to decide what to do with the results of the poll #Poll: Should the image be shown inline, or as a link?.

Would you agree that we do set a deadline, but if any of the options reach a 70% before that deadline, that option is declared the winner, and if that doesn't occur before the deadline, the winner is any of the options which has the largest percentage up to that point (the deadline)?

This poll needs a minimum of 30 votes in total and any option a maximum of 70% of support to be declared a winner.

I agree

1. Yes. Cantus…☎ 12:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - This is the most sensible option and a fair compromise.
2. Vacuum c 02:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree

1. No. See comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. No. The status quo is what we use when proposals fail. Consensus the other way (e.g. consensus to keep on VfD) isn't meaningful -- it's a one-way test, not a two-way. Of course, on VfD, it's somewhat more complicated because of the multiple outcomes, but they're typically handled in a tiered way. Our way of doing things is inherently conservative, but that's ok by me. --Improv 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   • Yes, but the status quo until quite recently, 6 Feb I believe, was to include a link. Vacuum c 00:54, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. no. (next poll should be about whether or not to have any more polls here) — Davenbelle 18:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
4. No. And since there will be no consensus reached (ever, I should think), I hope someone with more stamina than I is thinking about what to do next. NOT "another poll", NOT redefining who WINS (no one can win). A third, separate option. Though I doubt one really exists, given the extremism exhibited by some posters. Flyers13 21:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. No. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. No. Noisy | Talk 23:24, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
7. No. That is no way to conduct a poll Gkhan 17:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I do not object to accepting a 70% consensus reached before the deadline, but I do object strongly to abandoning the principle of consensus if the deadline is reached. If no consensus is reached we should continue to try to make a consensus. This proposal constitutes an unacceptable attempt to hijack the survey process to produce a majority-wins vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That, my friend, will be the only way we will get anything decided here. Please accept this compromise. —Cantus…☎ 12:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus is Wikipedia policy. I am not at liberty to abandon it, for I could not impose a majority rule on other editors, nor would ArbCom agree to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Compromising is also policy (or should be). —Cantus…☎ 12:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Compromising is policy, it's part of finding consensus. But you're not really proposing compromise, you're proposing the abandonment of the search for consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You say you wouldn't "object to accepting a 70% consensus reached before the deadline [...] If no consensus is reached we should continue to try to make a consensus." This is the same as waiting forever to reach a 70% of support. Or do you mean creating a new poll after the deadline? —Cantus…☎ 12:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

We should always search for consensus. If the deadline is reached and consensus cannot be reached on the original proposal (inline or link) then we must try to find other ways of reaching consensus on what to do. I don't mean that we continue to try to reach consensus on a proposal that fails to find consensus after six weeks--if that happens, we should just accept that as a failure to reach consensus and try to find other grounds for consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea that a consensus must be reached to change the status quo is absurd. This means that if you have a significant minority, you can put whatever you want to on any wikipedia page, and then say that it has to stay because there's no consensus to remove it. If a consensus is not possible, as it is not in this instance, and compromise is not possible, as it is not in this case, since we only have the options of having it inline or not (Linking is already a compromise between having it and not having it at all), then a minority shouldn't be able to trump the views of a majority simply because the current version of the page has their preferred version on it. john k 00:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not having it at all isn't really an option. It was already on IfD and kept. So linking isn't actually a compromise in this case. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand by the rest of my comments, however. john k 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, I agree that the situation you describe would be absurd, but that is not the situation pertaining on Wikipedia. All the poll does (so far) is establish that there is as yet no consensus either to inline or to link the picture. It doesn't prevent anyone from doing either (although doing so at present is, as we've seen, likely to provoke a sterile edit war resulting in the protection of the article). If we wait and discuss alternatives a consensus may or may not emerge; if we edit-war no such consensus will ever be possible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Linking now?

Cantus has linked the image with the edit summary "Current consensus is to link the image by 52 to 40. We cannot ignore this and keep showing the image inline. If you revert you will be going against the wishes of the community." (00:37, 10 Feb 2005). Well I reverted becuase I think it's obvious that 52 to 40 is not a consensus. At VfD, they define "rough consensus" as 2/3, and we don't even have that. Plus, the poll hasn't even concluded yet. And there are polls about how to interpret the first poll. Call me crazy... TIMBO (T A L K) 04:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits to article

From the article edit summary:

Cantus replaced the image with a link with this text in the edit summary: "Current consensus is to link the image by 52 to 40. We cannot ignore this and keep showing the image inline. If you revert you will be going against the wishes of the community."

Limeheadnyc (Timbo) reverted this saying: "rv -- the poll doesn't even show "rough concensus," let alone real concensus. And the poll hasn't concluded yet."

Now I ask, why should the image stay inline when the majority wants it linked? If the poll changes to an inline majority, then it should be changed again. Yes, back and forth. Inline voters will keep saying there is no concensus for a change because it suits them, because that means they can go on and on with this discussion and the image will stay inline. —Cantus…☎ 04:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're sore because of what happened at clitoris? The situations are different because there the vast majority was pro-pic. (As well as anti-disclaimer etc.) Granted it wasn't 100%, but the vast, vast majority was enough to warrant calling it consensus. Indeed, that majority was so strong that it got you blocked when you didn't comply. However, what we have here is nowhere near that. Calling your pov the "wishes of the community" is a bit spurious, and I think you know that. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see now that clean discussion is not in your book and are now resorting to personal attacks. Tsk-tsk. Actually my position ended up winning at Clitoris. I got the "pussy-spread" porno image removed and replaced with something more educational. —Cantus…☎ 05:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

As a close watcher of the clitoris dispute, I note that the poll supported the original "pussy spread" picture overwhelmingly. The picture came to be removed only because it was found to be a copy violation; the current picture has been strongly criticised by some because the clitoris is not as clearly displayed as the previous one; the search for a more suitable picture or pictures continues. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I mean no offense, and I apologize if any was taken. The fact remains, though, that there is no consensus. Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity in a case as controversial and with as large a number of total votes as this, but it obviously doesn't mean 57% majority; thus while a reached consensus may enable action in the face of vehemently opposing editors, this does not qualify. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

57% is more than enough on split cases such as this. —Cantus…☎ 05:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

How do you figure? Is one vote more than enough on a case like this? I would think that there would need to be sufficient consensus or else it seems a lot of people will get their revert-fingers ready (such as, for example, the 40 who voted "inline", and then the 52 who voted "link" in retaliation, ad infinitum). Any lasting action must come from consensus. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is conceivable, as I noted earlier, that a determined majority of 57% could impose linking by edit-warring. But that kind of behavior would likely lead to arbitration. ArbCom would in my estimation be unlikely to rule that a majority is acceptable in cases like this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Copied here from above section by Cantus:) I reverted becuase I think it's obvious that 52 to 40 is not a consensus. At VfD, they define "rough consensus" as 2/3, and we don't even have that. Plus, the poll hasn't even concluded yet. And there are polls about how to interpret the first poll. Call me crazy... TIMBO (T A L K) 04:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is crazy is to keep showing the image when 57% thinks otherwise. —Cantus…☎ 05:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

If in the current climate of opinion you can find a way to perform the edit to link the image and have nobody restore it, please feel free to do so. In principle I see no problem with this, or agreeing to alternate linking and inlining in shifts of one or two days, while we continue to search for consensus on what, ultimately, we should do with the image. It would have helped, though, if you had made any such proposal prior to engaging in edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes yes, there are 52 who want a link and 40 who want inline. That's only a slight majority. My previous comments remain valid. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun, Cantus. 57% isn't far from either 67% or 47%. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-10 05:17 Z

The difference between 47% and 57% is that 57% is an absolute majority and 47% is not. —Cantus…☎ 05:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

There should always be more than a bare majority for the reduction of content on wikipedia. If there was a clear and explicit policy backing the vote, then the degree of consensus required would be more flexible, but that is not the case. The presumption is always that content shall remain, unabridged, absent a sufficient consensus or clear policy to the contrary. If the margin of votes doesn't move significantly from where it is now, the default of the image remaining inline would apply. Postdlf 05:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please show which policy supports your claims. Geni 05:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What policy supports my claim that there is no policy underlying this vote? Or what policy supports my claim that content should not be removed (hidden in this case) from wikipedia without a compelling reason?

This whole process has been a mess. Other articles have had polls regarding certain editorial decisions, which may remain contentious after a long period of time, but at least it is clear what is trying to be accomplished, because wikipedia has explicit standards of scholarship that are inherently bound with the purpose at which we task here—the disagreements for the most part are scholarly ones of fact and interpretation. That is not the case here. Instead we have an ad hoc vote based on gut feeling of "offense" or "appropriateness", without a serious discussion of what that means in this context, or any kind of assurance that this isn't merely a proxy for narrow cultural views of sexual morality and decency. Those who think that it is obvious that the image is offensive in some objectively identifiable way have obviously missed the fact that there has been a long debate about this. So without an explicit standard, without defined terms, without logical explanations of why the remedy must follow the "offense" of being "offensive", without a clear sense of what consequences would follow, if any, if the image isn't hidden, we've just had a fairly superficial head count on whether an image that illustrates the article should be removed on unclear reasons that have nothing to do with accuracy, NPOV, relevance, nothing bound to what wikipedia is about.

Is it really so much to ask, under those circumstances, that before the image is hidden the head count is at least damn substantial? Postdlf 06:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

57% is substantial. —Cantus…☎ 06:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

That is not something you have agreement on. That is rarely, if ever considered substantial in VfD, where we have clear policy guidelines regarding original research, vanity pages, etc. Why should that be substantial here where there is no general, agreed-upon rationale for "offensive" images? Postdlf 06:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you're questioning a validity of the vote? You're implying that the people who voted for linking the image are stupid and bla bla bla. And you, of course, is aware of consequences so your vote is better than mine. Sorry, but you look like a sore Kerry supporter. It's obvious that your position would never be supported by majority. 57 is always more than 40. Live with it. Grue 06:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an election, though. It's a content dispute. Wiki works by consensus (or at least rough consensus). If you have that, then you can say "Live with it" to the minority. That's what happened at clitoris. Until then, we've got 52 to 40 – a weak majority. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, consensus would be ideal. Given the number of votes on each side at this point, there will not be a consensus. A consensus is absolutely impossible when 52 people feel one way and 40 feel another. Even if a hundred more people show up and all vote one way, that's still not a consensus - 152 to 40 is a large supermajority, but not a consensus. Consensus is already completely impossible in this binary situation. Obviously, there is no possible compromise (well - we could find another image that offends fewer people, but assuming we don't do that...). Which means that the question is whether, in the absence of consensus, a simple majority should decide; or whether the burden of proof is on those wanting to link, and thus a supermajority is required for a link. The argument has nothing to do with consensus. The issue at hand is whether or not the burden is on those wanting to remove something to provide a supermajority. Given that we are not proposing removing the image (which seems absurd to me, btw - it is pretty clearly commercial pornography, with no real redeeming value), I see no particular reason why the burden should be on those wanting to link it. john k 08:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A few days ago Cantus suggested 70% as the bar for a consensus, and there was general agreement to this (at the time it looked as if the link option would romp home on this criterion). Although I recognise that the current vote shows a clear majority for linking, this is not the consensus we all agreed to in advance. Indeed as time has gone on the initial high support for the link option has (to my surprise) tended to erode and it is not inconceivable that over time the positions could be reversed, with an equally high majority for inlining. See my other comments on your belief that the status quo would be supported by default--it simply would not. There is no inherent bias on Wikipedia, and it is quite possible that a 56% (or whatever) majority could impose its will (most of the time) on this page in the absence of a consensus, if all were willing to engage in edit warring. But that isn't the way we do things on Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So what are you arguing for as the basic principle here, Tony? Now, 70% would be nice. But if 70% cannot be achieved, what then? On what principle should the minority position be preferred in the absence of the supermajority? john k 08:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

70% isn't just "nice", it is the criterion agreed in advance. If neither option achieves that level, then the poll has failed to establish a consensus. See my other comments about your belief that failure to establish a consensus would favor the minority position. Failure to establish a consensus favors neither. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A 70% criterion was never agreed in advance. —Cantus…☎

I think you're techhically correct--my apologies. I think it was very shortly after Sannse suggested the poll and we started voting that you made the following suggestion:

When does the poll end? How is the result interpreted? I suggest a minimum of 30 votes (votes for inline + votes for link = 30) and a 70% of support for one of the two choices. After that the change (if necessary edit-wise) must be made. —Cantus…☎ 01:47, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

You seemed to be perfectly happy with this at the time, and so was I. In fact, I don't recally any dissent on your suggestion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was certainly no agreement from me to a specific value, in fact I said that I regarded all these extra criteria as far too complicated. I also see no reason why, in a split vote, the default should be to show the image - this is not the same as a vote for deletion where "keep" is the default. And, I'm afraid, all these votes on how to interpret the vote are just silly. Whatever happened to common sense? This really is turning into a candidate for silliest wars ever. My own view of how this should end is obvious, but I really don't see a point in being involved in this dispute at this point. I think this is an issue where a general policy needs to be worked out - if that's impossible, then maybe this is a case where a project-wide top-down decision is needed. I would hate to see that, but if we can't agree then I suspect Jimbo is going to have to do so for us. The mess here is downright depressing -- sannse (talk) 12:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well 70% is on the low side for consensus (I think the lowest practical value I've seen is 2/3, applied by some admins on VfD duty). I still think it's perfectly acceptable. Far from being silly, I think this is turning out to be a very interesting poll. My earlier belief that we had the makings of a consensus on linking has been severely challenged; nor do we have consensus on inline display. I doubt that we would win consensus on *not* displaying the picture, but if we are still deadlocked after six weeks it may be worth a try.

I agree with your point on a split vote. If we don't get consensus on inline or link, there should be no "default". Editors may want to try fiddling with layout or the form of linking (a very small thumbnail could be used, for instance) and experimentaiton of this kind could well achieve consensus that seems to be eluding us in this vote.

Of course it is always possible that, with the generous six week deadline, we may see people voting for link "just to help to get a usable consensus". If there were strong signs of this happening and very few new votes for inline in the week before March 20 I would be in favor of extending the deadline and I'm sure you'd have no trouble getting consensus on such an extension. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alternative suggestions would be very welcome -- sannse (talk) 16:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is what I said all along. Wait forever until we get that 70%. —Cantus…☎ 16:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the optimistic scenario I described above should come to pass, I'd not oppose an extension of the deadline. But that doesn't mean "wait forever until we get that 70%." At some point it may become clear that the 70% is extremely unlikely ever to happen. That point doesn't seem so far off now, but we have weeks to go yet and things could change. People could start to come back in great numbers and change their votes, even. That cannot be ruled out as yet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protection End of discussion

Latest protection by silsor guarantees the wishes of the community to link the image will never be enforced. Thank you very much. This is the end of the discussion. The image stays forever. Thanks to everybody who participated. —Cantus…☎ 06:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

But surely the community's wishes of which you speak wouldn't let that happen. Or are the admins all ganging up against the entire community again? TIMBO (T A L K) 06:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When you questioned my on my user talk page about it you requested that I not be rude in my response. You certainly seem to have no difficulty speaking rudely about me here. silsor 06:56, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

The stated purpose of protection in our policies is to cool a controversy, in support of achieving consensus. Silsor's judgement that the need exists seems reasonable on this, especially in light of one editor's rush to act on the basis of a majority that is far from our typical consensuses and far from the deadline for declaring failure to reach consensus.

And lest anyone be fooled, in case it's not obvious: one editor cannot override the pretty strong consensus reached here already, about how to run the poll, by declaring the "end of the discussion." --Jerzy(t) 07:34, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Look up hyperbole. —Cantus…☎ 07:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

You'll do better here if you respect the seriousness of the discussion by saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. --Jerzy(t) 09:06 & 20:42, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

You'll do better here if you stopped removing my messages on grounds of personal attacks. Please stop doing that. —Cantus…☎ 10:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

While removing msgs seems to be a popular and accepted method of removing personal attacks, that is not what i have done: i consider worthwhile the greater effort of preserving the legitimate substance of the msg while removing the attack. The removal in question is, IIRC, my 2nd here, the other being also re a personal attack by you on a colleague.

(This is an effort by me to remove material in a category that, according to a clear consensus and formal policy, is harmful to this community, and as i just said, i do it in a way that preserves the informational content. You have now twice labelled it "censorship", evoking a term that is usually, i.e. outside this context, contrary to WP policy. (By that you attempt to divert attention from your flouting of a rock-solid WP policy against personal attacks.) And you attempt, in contrast to my practice, to suppress all record on the page of that criticism of your behavior as personal attacks. You don't want your personal attacks censored into relevant comments, but you want to censor into virtual invisibility criticism of your behavior that violates WP policy. You have the right to complain about my removing your attacks (despite removal's wide acceptance by the community, and my extra care to limit its scope), but no right to hide off this page, by use of simple reversion, the implicit characterization of your edits as personal attacks.)

Your best strategy for stopping my removal of personal attacks by you would be ceasing your personal attacks.

--Jerzy(t) 20:42, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I regret my use (in my last msg abv this one that is less indented than this one) of the word "here", which in context implied i thought Cantus was a still-ignorant newbie who recently wandered in off the Web. They have in fact been a notably busy editor for about a year, with some good-sounding work under their belt. --Jerzy(t) 20:42, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I (Jerzy) replaced "Look up" in Cantus's (C for short) remark with (sig replaced here by the first ellipsis)

[Personal attack removed by ...; substance was "I was using..."].

in accord with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. C summarized their rv of that edit w/

Jerzy, please stop removing my message // if that was ever a personal attack, it was an attack on myself. My OWN hyperbole. Get it???? Stop censoring.

Cantus does not understand, or pretends not to, that the personal attack on me was not the use of the word "hyperbole", which i left intact (and which IMO obviously referred to C's remarks not mine), but the sarcastic "Look up", which obviously was directed at me and which i replaced. Clearly C could not make such a mistake except by failing to consider my obvious assertion that "Look up" was a personal attack whose legitimate informational substitute is "I [C] was using ...".

C used that imperative in a way that implies that the source of our disagreement about C's earlier remark was ignorance on my part. (C neither denies doing so intentionally, nor has apologized for doing it unintentionally.) In fact, it should be obvious that no one in this discussion needs to look up "hyperbole", and implying that i am an exception to that is a personal attack in violation of WP policy.

C must tone down the rhetoric and avoid personal attacks, whether intended or not. An example of C's excess (especially egregious since in a summary (cited above in this contrib) and thereby unalterable) is, in the course of 26 words, the shouting of "own", the gratuitous "get it?", and the quadruple question mark: these constitute another personal attack on me, as being obviously dull witted on the evidence that i removed an attack next to something else that C and i agree was not a personal attack on anyone (unless on C themself). And C has been here long enough to be required to understand that although we don't censor encyclopedic material (even if it has potential pornographic value), we do censor personal attacks. --Jerzy(t) 20:42, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I didn't protect this page on my own initiative; Here is the request that I acted on. The request asks for a specific version to be protected; I ignored that part and protected whatever happened to be on top. silsor 07:44, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

We can ask for protection to be removed and this will happen unless it is plain that the parties involved will simply resume their edit-warring. I shall give everybody twenty-four hours to cool off and then, unless there are still ongoing threats to edit war, I shall ask for the protection to be removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"I shall give everybody twenty-four hours to cool off" -- You would do well in improving your language, Tony. That sounded quite bossy. —Cantus…☎ 10:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a naturally bossy person. I think twenty-four hours should be ample. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's all in your head, Tony. —Cantus…☎ 11:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I like to think we're all grown-ups and will recognise that edit warring won't achieve the consensus we all seek. I hope that isn't too unrealistic, but you could be right. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I dunno get both side to nominacte a champion edit warrior and leave them to fight it out would probably be more peacful than the current situationGeni 13:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Things have calmed down a bit. I've asked for the article to be unprotected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ok, why is the image still inline at this moment?

you guys really know how to make a poll confusing to the point of pointlessness. I agree that we should strive for consensus (this means, compromise), and failing that, at least for consensus of a large majority (like 70%). The question is, what to do while consensus is being built. At the moment we have 55 votes for linking the image and 41 for keeping it inline. It seems very evident, therefore, that until we come up with a more broadly accepted solution, the image should be linked to. dab (ᛏ) 13:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would oppose this based on my many comments etc. It's POV no matter how you slice it. Be that as it may, there is not yet consensus to enforce this view (however clearly it is governed by existing POV policies, since people disagree). There is no consensus to enforce linking the image either -- there are two substantial and conflicting viewpoints. I hope we all try to build consensus, but while we do, mandating interim action based on slight majority is absurd. Everyone is free to edit the article as he/she sees fit, but I hope we will all realize that edit wars are the inevitable result without consensus. So go ahead, link the image. I hope you won't take offense, however, when I revert you. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly not oppose this. Be aware that such an edit may prove controversial, however. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Been there, done that:

1. (cur) (last) 08:22, 10 Feb 2005 Silsor (protected)
2. (cur) (last) 07:47, 10 Feb 2005 SPUI (ooh, rv war fun)
3. (cur) (last) 07:46, 10 Feb 2005 Grue m (I have more spare rvs than you)
4. (cur) (last) 07:34, 10 Feb 2005 Limeheadnyc m (rv again -- see my comments at the talk page)
5. (cur) (last) 07:29, 10 Feb 2005 Grue m (rv wars are fun, for sure. mise well participiate)
6. (cur) (last) 07:20, 10 Feb 2005 Postdlf m (Reverted edits by Cantus to last version by Davenbelle)
7. (cur) (last) 07:09, 10 Feb 2005 Cantus (rv -- follow majority)
8. (cur) (last) 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 Davenbelle (rv -- ibid)
9. (cur) (last) 07:04, 10 Feb 2005 Geni (rv since there is no consenus or defult under these cercemstances we might as well follow the majority.)
10. (cur) (last) 06:41, 10 Feb 2005 Limeheadnyc m (rv -- the poll doesn't even show "rough concensus," let alone real concensus. And the poll hasn't concluded yet.)
11. (cur) (last) 06:37, 10 Feb 2005 Cantus (Current consensus is to link the image by 52 to 40. We cannot ignore this and keep showing the image inline. If you revert you will be going against the wishes of the community.)

So, have fun. --gcbirzan^talk 14:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We do not have consensus to do anything. Until and unless we do, we stay with the status quo, which is to keep the image. It is unclear if the proposal to remove the images will ever go over the normal 70% to reach consensus, so there's a good chance that the image will stay for good, or at least until/unless at some later time someone manages to get enough of a force behind them to mandate their removal. --Improv 15:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ipse dixit, eh? :-) --gcbirzan^talk 18:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The status quo until very recently was a link. Here's the relevant history (my comments in [brackets]):

• (cur) (last) 10:17, Sep 23, 2004 N1ck (wiki-compliant image link) [first image first added, as link]
• (cur) (last) 05:51, Nov 13, 2004 Cantus (rm porn pic) [remove]
• (cur) (last) 07:39, Nov 14, 2004 Limeheadnyc m (revert -- start a discussion on the talk page if you want to remove the link to the picture) [link]
• (cur) (last) 00:01, Jan 6, 2005 Tony Sidaway (Since someone has cited this as a precedent for censorship, let's test the precedent) [inline]
• (cur) (last) 00:28, Jan 6, 2005 Everyking (i think that's a bit extreme, tony) [link]
• (cur) (last) 01:45, Jan 8, 2005 Limeheadnyc m (Can't think of a good reason to link to this when I've never seen a link used elsewhere.) [inline]
• (cur) (last) 02:56, Jan 11, 2005 Rdsmith4 m (rm deleted image) [remove]
• (cur) (last) 21:31, Jan 11, 2005 Tony Sidaway (New image to replace the deleted one) [replacement image, inline]
• (cur) (last) 20:02, Jan 16, 2005 Limeheadnyc m (put back Autofellatio.jpg) [remove replacement; add original, inline]
• (cur) (last) 18:26, Jan 24, 2005 141.30.220.106 (removed offensive image) [remove]
• (cur) (last) 18:27, Jan 24, 2005 Fvw m (Reverted edits by 141.30.220.106 to last version by Limeheadnyc) [inline]
• (cur) (last) 23:39, Jan 24, 2005 61.7.2.216 [remove]
• (cur) (last) 23:48, Jan 24, 2005 Raul654 m (Reverted edits by 61.7.2.216 to last version by Limeheadnyc) [inline]
• (cur) (last) 12:42, Jan 31, 2005 Cantus [link]
• (cur) (last) 14:32, Jan 31, 2005 Limeheadnyc m (rv deletion of image) [inline]
• (cur) (last) 23:35, Jan 31, 2005 Cantus m [inline, 50px]
• (cur) (last) 00:08, Feb 1, 2005 Cantus [remove]
• (cur) (last) 00:35, Feb 1, 2005 Cantus [link with {{offensive image}} template]

... at which point, the revert wars started in earnest. —Korath (Talk) 18:18, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the image was fairly consistently inlined from January 6 through early February. The poll was initiated February 3rd. Since I switched it to inline Jan 6, all attempts to link it have failed. Hence this poll to see if a consensus can be raised either for inline or for link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The status quo is that we have no policy suggesting we keep images that may be offensive out of articles. Cantus, you want to change that, get the consensus to do so. Until then, understand that there's no policy nor strawpoll where you've achieved the consensus needed to keep such images out. --Improv 20:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the status quo is simply undefined. this is related to "the wrong version". Before the image was inserted, the bloody status quo was 'no image', wasn't it? dab (ᛏ) 11:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thus spoke Jimbo

Thus spoke Jimbo. 'nuff said. Discussion closed. Samboy 05:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's truly pathetic. Out. Thanks to all editors who at least tried to establish some consensus. Flyers13 06:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So what's the deal - are we still treating Jimbo's edicts as case law? --SPUI (talk) 06:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. He's pretty benevolent, as dictators go. And we wouldn't have an encyclopedia to work on if he didn't continue providing it. foobaz·✐ 06:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure we could. It's all GFDL, remember? --gcbirzan^talk 07:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Servers aren't free. Nor is bandwidth. It wouldn't be the first Wiki fork if you did it. Samboy 07:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image, and I didn't decide the case. What I did was make a change to the article which is consistent with the ongoing vote. There is no reason (at all!) to have a disgusting and idiotic picture on the article until there is community support for keeping it. And that wasn't about to happen. And yes, SPUI, my edicts are still case law, at least, if they ever were then they still are. But in this case, the edict is just this: follow the will of the community, and out of respect for different opinions, follow the benevolent and inoffensive route while seriously discussing the merits of the image. If that's tyranny, well... --Jimbo Wales 08:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo has spoken

Oh praise the lord! —Cantus…☎ 06:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Aah, now the true agenda revealed! Not "we must link", but now "remove the link!", and, soon, doubtless, "remove the article". Nice. Wouldn't want to offend any random Red People reading up on silly sexual articles. --Flyers13 (unsigned)

A lot of people don't know that slippery slope thinking is a fallacy. Samboy 07:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know what a "random Red Person" is, but please do keep in mind that I'm hardly one to be offended by anything.

Raul's convo

(CC'd to talk:Jimbo Wales)

For the benefit of people reading this, I had a conversation with Jimbo about this a few days ago. Here's a small snippet which might help you to understand his reasoning:

[17:05] <Raul654> Ok, then *why* exactly are you deleting it?

[17:05] <Raul654> you aren't deleting it because it is a copyvio

[17:05] <jwales> Right.

[17:05] <Raul654> you aren't deleting it because it could offend people

[17:05] <Raul654> then why exactly do you want it deleted?

[17:06] <Raul654> I'm missing something here

[17:06] <jwales> Because it is a horrible picture. It adds nothing of value. It is unserious. It is demeaning.

Jimbo did not delete it for censorship reasons. He deleted it because it is his opinion that the article is not more informative because of the picture (I disagree with this asseration, for the record). As such, he would like it deleted. He also went on to say (although I could very well be misinterpreting him and he is free to correct me on this) that if someone could find a "clinical" photo to add to the article he would be fine by it. (By which, I assume he meant inlined, as with Clitoris, which he mentioned as a good example of how to handle a situation like this) →Raul654 07:19, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

He probably referred to a simple drawing. All in all, I believe this encyclopedia now has a much brighter future. Inline absolutists have been sorely defeated. They will now propose new less offensive photos (?!) and other naughty drawings of the act. But they will have to seek community support before implementing such changes. Let this new era begin! —Cantus…☎ 07:31, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not community support. Support from one person. --SPUI (talk) 08:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image anyway. I just removed it from the page while the poll continues. I'm confident that the poll will go the right way and that'll be the end of it.--Jimbo Wales 09:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you go to that page and vote then? If you vote for delete, I suspect many more will follow you. The logic that this porno picture should be kept apparently is that the picture supposedly "illustrates" the act and is "educational." Oh really? Should we also post child pornography for "educational purposes"? How about bestiality porn for educational purposes? If those can't be posted because they might be illegal, then this picture is also probably illegal in some countries. What is the policy then? You need to take the stand and clearly define the policy OneGuy 09:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales would be voting so that people follow his lead, that would be an appeal to authority. Child pornography... what's "educational" about it? That's "pornography", pure and simple. This, however, has an educational value.

More to the point, putting pornographic pictures on a pornography article might be on topic, but it's still pornography, as its name suggests. Putting a picture of a man performing autofellatio on the autofellatio page might be disgusting to some people, but you can't consider it pornography more than you can consider the images on Clitoris pornography. Personally, I would consider Image:Three.jpg pornography more than this one, since it doesn't really add much to the article.

--gcbirzan^talk 10:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Since I did not post any argument, how can there be a fallacy in anything I wrote? I gave a suggestion how he can get more people to vote for delete. I don't even think there should be a vote on this. As the site owner, he should define the policy on prono pictures and delete all porno pictures based on that policy (including the picture "three" you refer above) OneGuy 11:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I think it's a lovely picture. But that is a matter of taste. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

rv to inline because no policy page or legal requirement cited. When Jimbo's statement is incorporated in policy, then his action may be acceptable, until then it is just North American double standards. I'd be content if there was a policy statement somewhere that stated what is and what isn't acceptable, but until that time, and I've had the opportunity to vote on the level of censorship to be applied, then a poorly argued action like this is not on. Noisy | Talk 11:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

what absolute twaddle. it's not double standards, it's common sense. if you read Jimbo's statement, you will see that he takes into account that there is no community consensus to keep it. American relativism is just as bad as American double standards. If you expect that we're adding a paragraph to policy for every porn image people upload (such as "no images of men sucking their own penis"), you are a fool. dab (ᛏ) 11:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly the point? We're having an enormous debate here about a single image. Do we want to repeat this for every single image? Or every subject? Or every political point of view? What is "common sense"? What is "a horrible picture. It adds nothing of value. It is unserious. It is demeaning." if not a personal viewpoint? This debate will only end if Jimbo writes a coherent policy on the level of censorship to be applied across the Wikipedia, because – let's face it – we're not going to agree amongst ourselves. I don't have a problem with nudity, but an image of an operation would turn my stomach. That's my personal viewpoint. Every single one of us will have a different viewpoint. If there were a single view laid down by a single person, then there wouldn't be any argument. "No nudity" – fine. "No graphic depiction of the infliction of pain, unless a line drawing" – fine. "Vote on every single image that might cause offence to one or two people! – not fine. Noisy | Talk 12:02, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Even though I don't think the vote is necessary (as the owner of the site, Jimbo should delete it right away), vote for delete is on this page Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion OneGuy 11:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's removal of dog cat picture

The inclusion of the dog picture and its caption implies that dogs lick their genitals for sexual gratification. While this may well be true I think we need a bit more than just the unsourced claim. If there's reliable observation implying a sexual motive (accounts of ejaculation after "cleaning" would make sexual gratification a reasonable inference, for instance) let's have it, and then we can include the picture alongside that evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

uhm open your eyes tony ... 1) its a cat ... not a dog :P 2) my cat REPEATEDLY (as many as 15-20 times a day) would lick its own penis while he was still alive, theres no way thats all just cleaning (particularly considering it would do it even after a bath). User:Alkivar/sig 15:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cats lick themselves after all baths to recoat their fur. Hyacinth 18:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking at your picture now but I cannot tell what kind of animal it is, cat or dog. I cannot see the animal's head so I don't know whether it's licking its penis. In any case your own theories about why your cat licked its penis are original research. Please find some reportable observation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Tony on this. While the claim seems plausible, it must be backed up by a valid citation or else it is original research and must be removed. --mav 17:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Has such cleaning ever been referred to as being for sexual gratification in any scientific liturature? If not then it's merely your own opinion. — Asbestos | Talk 18:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is an example of a cat trying to perform autofellatio, but not quite reaching. However, it's clear evidence cats do try to perform it. --gcbirzan^talk 18:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It may just be trying to clean its dick. --SPUI (talk) 18:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To refer to pets licking their own genitals as a form of oral sex may be plausible, indeed you may be able to convince us by pointing to pictures of animals licking their genitals with great displays of pleasure, but it would still be original research. Find just one quotable source saying that cats sometimes lick their own penises for sexual gratification, and this would justify the inclusion of the photograph. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, from Wikipedia:Original_research#Classifying_viewpoints_by_appropriateness:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents [ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides].
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not [ed. A polite rational discussion in the Talk page or "votes for deletion" is probably the way to settle this].

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image poll

Okay, there are many opinions out there. I thought I'd bring this all to one place. This vote concerns whether to use an image on this article, and, if so, which one (or ones). Static versions of all images are used, so that if someone overwrites an image, it won't affect the vote. The images have been removed from the article, pending the outcome of this vote. This vote will end on February 20, 2005.

• Image 1: [2] (NOTE: Image 1 is claimed by some editors to be a Copyvio on the grounds that a thumbnail from the same series.)
• Image 2: [3]
• Image 3: [4]

Please leave only your vote in the voting sections. All comments should go in the comments section.

We should use only image 1 in the article.

1. Carnildo 23:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We should use only image 2 in the article.

1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
2. OneGuy 05:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We should use more than one of the above images in the article.

1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. LizardWizard 00:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
3. gcbirzan^talk 00:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Only Image 2 and 3 are acceptable.  ALKIVAR™ 09:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Only image 1 and 2 are acceptable. Sam Hocevar 18:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We should not use any of the above three images in the article.

1. Davenbelle 23:28, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
2. None of these should be inline. Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Any comments in the voting sections above should be moved here.
• All three if 3 can be established to be a form of autofellation. Otherwise 1 and 2, either alone or together, are suitable for illustrating this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  This "illustrating the article" can't be a justification for uploading porn. There should be a clear policy. Should we allow people to upload child porn to "illustrate" (what a joke) what child porn is? And other graphic porn "illustrating" bestiality, anal sex, urolagnia, rapes, necrophilia? That's just a nonsensical excuse for allowing people to upload porn. The policy on this should be clearly defined, and all porno pictures should be deleted. I don't see what's the point of this poll anyway. The site owner should define the rules on porn. He has already said this image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline. That should be the end of the debate. Someone can always start their own Pornopedia if they disagree. OneGuy 22:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  What is pornography? Who defines it, and how? --Carnildo 23:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  The site owner should define it, but I can make my own definition anyway if you want: "Sexually explicit pictures that have any connection to sexual arousal. Delete all such pictures." Simple policy. OneGuy 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Pornography ceases to be pornography when it becomes encyclopedic, because then sexual titillation is no longer its sole purpose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. Try uploading child porn on Wikipedia and see if law enforcement agencies agree with that argument OneGuy 23:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  It shouldn't be too hard to come up with an image that, on a kiddie porn site, would be illegal child pornography, but here on Wikipedia, would be legal (at least in the United States), informative and encyclopedic. The problems with uploading it, however, would be that other jurisdictions would consider to still be illegal, and that I doubt such an image would be GFDL-compatible. --Carnildo 01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Now here we have someone arguing that uploading child porn on Wikipedia would be justified too. This just goes on to show that the kind arguments used to keep this porno picture can be used by trolls to upload all kinds of porn ( and cry "censorship" if they are deleted). Jimbo should take a note of this and delete this picture and all subsequent porn that might be uploaded to the site.OneGuy 01:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  At a glance: straw man, slippery slope. --gcbirzan^talk 01:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  He did say uploading child porn would be legal "here on Wikipedia, would be legal (at least in the United States)" Making the argument for having stricter policy on porn stronger :)) OneGuy 02:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I meant people using this argument in this case will lead to people uploading all kinds of porn (i.e. child porn), therefore this argument is bad. I am also going to add appeal to authority to that. Before you start showting, Jimbo is the one that makes the rules, you should see that he deferred the decision to us. So, your argument is reduced to Jimbo agrees with me, therefore I am right. So, you must be wrong. ■ :-) gcbirzan^talk 02:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I never said that since Jimbo Whales agrees with me that's why I am right. See Straw man. I said that since Jimbo Whales is the final authrority, his decision will be the final one, regadless of wheter you are right or wrong (and since you are also wrong, it would be a just decision too). OneGuy 02:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Well child pornography is illegal because there is a statute against it and that statute (in most countries) provides for no study exemptions. So you're not really addressing my point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  That's your assertion that pornography cease to be pornography. I see no reason to agree with you, especially given that Wikipedia is online Encyclopedia where anyone can abuse it by uploading all sorts of graphic porn with a nonsensical excuse that he uploaded it to "illustrate" whatever. That's why the policy should be clearly defined (as I did above) and all porn deleted. OneGuy 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  You seem to be trying for a slippery slope argument, but that argument was lost the minute the first erect penis was posted on Wikipedia. Things that may be pornographic in one context are not pornographic in another. It is also the case that Wikipedia will always need pornography, if only to illustrate the article on pornography. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  The minute the first erect penis was uploaded doesn't imply that I lost the argument. All porn should be deleted no matter when they were uploaded. I already defined above what would qualify as "porn." You have asserted that porn uploaded to an internet encyclopedia ceases to be porn. That's just an assertion, and I don't agree with that assertion OneGuy 00:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  You're not required to agree with it, and you can't just go around redefining the meaning of pornography to suit your wishes either. A picture of an erect penis on penis serves to illustrate the article. If people want to get all funky over that picture, well that's fine too, but it's not what it's there for. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  You are the one who redefined pornography by asserting that anything uploaded by anyone to an internet encyclopedia (child porn, bestiality, anal sex, necrophilia, whatever) ceases to be porn. That's pretty absurd and ridiculous assertion. Since this is an online encyclopedia open to all kinds of abuse, the policy should make it clear that porn uploaded to the site (see the definition above) should be deleted immediately without any debate OneGuy 00:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  It is indeed a ridiculous assertion, but that assertion is yours. My assertion was this: Pornography ceases to be pornography when it becomes encyclopedic, because then sexual titillation is no longer its sole purpose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  And that assertion implies that anything (child porn, bestiality, anal sex, necrophilia, etc.,) uploaded by anyone to this online encyclopedia ceases to be pornography. That kind of reasoning should not be allowed as a justification to keep this porno picture or any other graphic porn uploaded to the site by abusive trolls. That's why Jimbo needs to clearly define the policy to prevent such abuses, as happened in this case OneGuy 00:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I'll leave you to puzzle out the logical fallacy in your reasoning. I've made it plain that I do not regard the mere uploading of pornography to Wikipedia and its inclusion in articles as acceptable. I've shown you the words I used and yet you continue to claim that they mean something else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  You have tried to justify keeping porn uploaded to the site by some troll by claiming the picture "illustrates" something and so it became "encyclopedic." This kind of absurd reasoning to keep porn on the site can be used by abusive trolls to upload all kinds of graphic porn. That's why I suggested a clear policy to prevent such abuses. OneGuy 01:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  You're using loaded language. Someone uploads a picture of autofellatio and uses it to illustrate an article about autofellatio. There's no way that the picture would be retained on the article if it didn't illustrate autofellatio. You seem to be determined to describe this as an abuse but you to do not seem to be able to articulate in what way it is an abuse to illustrate an article about a sex act with a picture of the sex act. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Once again you are using absurd justifications to keep a porno picture uploaded by a troll. We have articles on child porn, bestiality, anal sex, urolagnia. Should we allow trolls to use those articles as a justification to upload all kinds of graphic porn to the site? Where is the limit? This just proves that the only solution to this kind of abuse would be to make it a policy to delete all porn uploaded to the site without a debate. Jimbo should take a note of that OneGuy 01:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  No, I'm not using absurd justifications. I'm pointing out that you're using loaded language, calling people "trolls" and their actions "abuses". Now you ask a question: Should we allow trolls to use those articles as a justification to upload all kinds of graphic porn to the site? My answer is "No." However we should illustrate our article appropriately and without undue prudishness. Illustrations of many of the sex acts you list above are obscene in the state of Florida, so they could not be uploaded legally. The others, well it would depend on whether the article was better with them than without. You seem to be pushing for a draconian ban on all lewd images simply because of this idea that Wikipedia will fill up with objectionable material. Well, if you want that you're in the wrong place. Go to Wikipedia:Current surveys and you'll find that there is an ongoing policy discussion on what to do about potentially objectionable images. You won't get anywhere here, this is just the talk page for Autofellatio. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I just called a spade a spade. Someone without that much of a history uploads a picture of a man sucking his own penis. I would say that's a troll. The picture should have been deleted immediately. You are now arguing that since the picture "illustrates" autofellatio, that's a valid justification to keep the picture. My answer is that that's an absurd justification, just as it would be absurd to keep child porn on the site to "illustrate" child porn uploaded by a troll. What's so hard to understand about that? Jimbo apparently reads this, so he should note the problem, and clearly define the policy on porn uploaded by trolls OneGuy 02:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I expect that, having made his own opinion clear, he will trust the community to reach the right decision. Which may not be the one he himself would be prefer.

  I simply cannot believe that you think that illustrating an article is not what images are good for. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  No, there should be some limit, just as pictures of child porn cannot be used to illustrate the article child porn, this picture cannot be used to illustrate this article. Where is the limit? What's the policy ? Jimbo can make the policy here by deleting this picture. OneGuy 04:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I think the problem is that you don't yet realise that nobody is arguing that there should not be some limit, but in general everybody disagrees with the idea that there should be a rigid limit. Here's a proposal that got a very strong consensus in the discussion on potentially objectionable images:

  Do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now. Revist this if it ever becomes a widespread problem that can't adequately be handled on a case by case basis on individual article talk pages as it is now. Policy should only ever be developed on an as needed basis, as excessive policy is both wasteful and harmful.

  That proposal got a clear consensus with 33 for and 5 against.

  So what do you think the chances are that a rigid policy of the kind that you propose will be implemented?

  I think our existing rather flexible policies work quite well. An image must be legal and should make the article it illustrates better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Well, that policy obviously did not work because in this case clearly some porn was uploaded by some unknown person (most likely a troll), yet the picture was not removed from the site. Moreover, this case dragged on for months with useless debate about how the uploaded porn "illustrate" the article, until Jimbo removed the porn from the article. The policy was a failure, and there is no reason to believe why this kind of nonsense will not be repeated again in other articles (anal sex, bestiality, child porn, etc). Jimbo himself needs to define a policy. He should make it clear that admins can delete all porn right away, especially since as an online encyclopedia any abusive troll can upload all kinds of porn to the site OneGuy 06:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  In that case, maybe you could get thing started by listing the images at IFD. A few good sources for porn images in the encyclopedia would be List of sex positions and subarticles, and many of the articles listed at Category:Sexology and Category:Pornography. --Carnildo 08:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  None of the illustrations in List of sex positions are graphic porn like this autofellatio picture. Potentially that article can also be a target of trolls who may try to disrupt Wikipedia by uploading porn and then justify their abusive behavior by using the same absurd arguments people used to keep this porno pictures on wikipedia. Wikipedia would be blocked by all child protection software, some ISPs, and countries where porn is illegal. It's harmful to wikipedia, and it opens the door to trolls to disrupt Wikipedia and then cry "censorship." A clear policy is needed to deal with the problem, as I suggested above OneGuy 08:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  This poll should continue to run in order to allow for full expression of opinion on this complex topic, but in the meantime showing such a photo absent overwhelming community support is unhelpful.

  The way I read it, the owner is saying we should decide what to do with the image. Can you, please, stop setting up straw men and start working towards agreement?

  P.S. This is neither ad hominem, nor a personal attack: you only present the part of Jimbo's argument that suits you and you presented the same arguments earlier, I me and Quadell replied to them, but you didn't reply back.

  --gcbirzan^talk 23:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  No, he clearly said the image is not acceptable. That part was pretty clear. He should clearly define the rules on porn instead of having this poll again. As a site owner, he will make the decision in the end anyway OneGuy 23:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I feel like in literature class, let's try to figure out what Jimbo actually wanted to say. :-) Personally, I read his comments as I would really like you people to vote against the picture being on Wikipedia, as I hate the picture. However, I will let you decide what to do with it. Of course, I could be waaay off... --gcbirzan^talk 23:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Well, if you simply read what he wrote instead of interpreting it, you won't feel like being in a literature class. This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline. That's pretty clear. OneGuy 23:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Are you aware that Jimbo also said, above, "I didn't decide the case."? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

  I didn't delete the image, and I didn't decide the case. What I did was make a change to the article which is consistent with the ongoing vote. There is no reason (at all!) to have a disgusting and idiotic picture on the article until there is community support for keeping it.

  I didn't delete the image anyway. I just removed it from the page while the poll continues. I'm confident that the poll will go the right way and that'll be the end of it

  Read those. If he wanted it gone, he would've deleted it, but he didn't.

  --gcbirzan^talk 23:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  The above quote doesn't contradict this: "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline" OneGuy 00:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  If you interpret it as this image must be deleted without a poll, as you seem to be doing, yes, it does. --gcbirzan^talk 00:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The explicit photo is out per Jimbo (which would apply to any similarly explicit photo); The illustration is a very poor one (I would support a better illustration); The cat is plain silly (it is unknown just what the cat is doing and it may be female). Focus people; let's end this silliness. — Davenbelle 23:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

  The explicit photo is not out per Jimbo. As he said, he did not decide the case. He removed the image pending consensus to keep. The cat, of course, is supposedly licking its penis to clean it, which is not, IMHO, autofellatio. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:41, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, let's have it in full: I didn't delete the image, and I didn't decide the case. What I did was make a change to the article which is consistent with the ongoing vote. There is no reason (at all!) to have a disgusting and idiotic picture on the article until there is community support for keeping it. And that wasn't about to happen. And yes, SPUI, my edicts are still case law, at least, if they ever were then they still are. But in this case, the edict is just this: follow the will of the community, and out of respect for different opinions, follow the benevolent and inoffensive route while seriously discussing the merits of the image. If that's tyranny, well...

  So it seems that while he personally finds the image extremely distasteful he wants the decision (the desired outcome of which he strongly telegraphs) to be made by the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Not an edict, but a clear enough opinion. Don't pee in the wind. — Davenbelle 00:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

  Edicts are edicts and opinions are opinions. I'm dry. How are you? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The inclusion of image #1 above is being voted on above. Voting for it here is unneccesary duplication. What will you do if the two votes don't agree because people aren't voting for both? — Asbestos | Talk 23:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  That's actually so far up, I hadn't seen it. In hindsight, I'd say that poll is very old and did not reach consensus. In fact, a clear outcome wasn't evident. This one has more options, and has a set time limit. So I'd like to think this supercedes the previous one. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

  I disagree. There are ten new votes from yesterday alone. The poll is only ten days old. And as for when the poll is over, I guess you haven't seen Talk:Autofellatio#Poll_deadline either, the poll on when the poll should end. This is clearly duplication and unneccesary. You just happened not to see the main poll, but others are still voting. — Asbestos | Talk 23:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Alright! I didn't see it. Be nice. I made this poll trying to help. You may be made of asbestos, but not all of us are. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:12, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

  We'll just vote on which of the votes to go by! --gcbirzan^talk 23:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I'd just like to comment here: I hate this dispute. I hate this talk page. I hate these polls. This is one of the silliest, longest, and most baffling disputes I've seen. There are polls, and polls about polls, and trolls, and gay porn and pictures of cats. Please stop. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting Wikipedia. Rhobite 02:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

  You think discussion is hurting Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  This isn't a discussion. Rhobite 03:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

  It's a pretty lively one, but a discussion all the same. I prefer a discussion to an edit war any day. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I personally think that an image as controversial as #1 should not be used unless there is a consensus to use it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:12, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy's removal of several external links

With the edit comment of "These are either pay site or sites selling products. Deleted free advertisement to commercials sites", OneGuy has removed a link to an autofellatio picture and a link to a site run by an autofellator. The reason given is most unusual and irregular in my experience. Many of the sites we link to exist to generate revenue for their owners by having a pay section or selling products. This is not regarded as adequate reason not to use them (we'd have to remove most of our external links, perhaps even some of the academic ones where they advertise paid courses. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second edit of that type: "one of the link just goes to main signup site of a porn site".

OneGuy, please justify your removals on this page, not in edit summaries.

You're wrong. Neither of the links goes to the signup for a porn site, it just goes to a normal age disclaimer. The website is free and contains lots of high quality stills and even some short clips of autofellatio. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The links are to porn sites that require signup or are selling products. This is encyclopedia, not a web directory for porn spam. There are thousands of pictures of autofellatio and thousands of porn web sites. Are we going to turn Wikipedia into a spam site where anyone who is making money would want his link to be added too? Why do you want these links to the commercial sites? There are thousands more. Find an academic web site, and you can link to that. You won't be allowed to link to pay porn sites. Sorry OneGuy 20:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well it's good to see you finally using the talk page.

As I said earlier, nearly all external sites are selling products, and it is categorically incorrect to state that either of the links you have removed requires any kind of signup. I don't mind at all that I won't be allowed to link to "pay porn" sites. I have no intention of doing so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link repository. OneGuy's action was therefore not only perfectly acceptable, it was welcome too, jguk 20:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Wikipedia is not a link repository but we do link to relevant external resources. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tony. Sure it's not a link repository, but why, then, have 2 instead of 4 links? Why not have none? That there are "thousands" of pictures of autofellatio makes no difference. There are thousands of pictures of basically everything on and linked to by wikipedia. A link verified as useful and accurate by Wikipedians is much preferable to searching for it on the internet and getting God-knows-what. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please find academic links. Wikipedia is not a porn site to help some porn site owners make money OneGuy 20:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One of the porn site linked is http://www.gaybigdick.com/. On the main page I see a sign up box that has a notice "Free age credit card." Most of these age vellication sites, charge money to "verify" age by using credit cards. The other site linked is http://www.solosuck.com/aeorder.html is selling video tapes for 50 dollars each. Find an academic web sites to add, not cheap commercial spam sites OneGuy 20:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe an academic web site is what we're trying to create. The link at http://www.gaybigdick.com/ is to an image and nothing else. That you might be put off by the domain name is of no consequence. The other site does not charge unless, Heaven forbid, you want to order a videotape. There is no moratorium on commercial sites here - this one is quite useful to the reader researching the topic. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

www.gaybigdick.com is not acedemic site. It's just another cheap porn site (like thousand more) with credit card "age verfication" system. The pay porn site will have to be removed. That was my 3rd rev, so I am done for today I guess, but this spam site won't stay here OneGuy 20:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about a compromise? We get rid of the biggaydick.com picture link. We keep the other, which is to a really excellent website with lots of high quality material. The sudden demand that we link only to academic sites is quite mind-boggling; we apply this criterion absolutely nowhere else on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not a sudden demand. I have always argued that the sites that we link should be either to a web directory or academic sites. Please see Islam article where the external links started becoming as big as the article itself. The solution was to remove all the links and instead link to web directory or academic sites. This is not a new demand. If you want a comprise, find a non-porn web directory (such as yahoo or something similar) on autofellatio and link to that. OneGuy 20:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's not the case here. There are 4 links. You set up a straw man argument about gaybigdick.com , and I didn't claim it was an academic site. The link is to a single picture and nothing else. It is what it is (which is not pay-porn). I think it illustrates the act better than any other picture I've seen. If the domain irks you, find a better one among those thousands you've seen on the internet. You won't be allowed to simply delete the links, though, because your arguments don't hold up. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The picture is on a domain that is cheap pay porn site. Moreover, the picture you link is porn. I am sorry to say, but you will have to find a non-porn web directory or academic site. OneGuy 20:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that the only recourse you have to enforce your individual, fallacious policy on wikipedia is three reverts a day and useless polemics on talk pages. TIMBO (T A L K) 21:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well OneGuy you'll probably be unhappy but not surprised to learn that Wikipedia does not have a policy of only using academic links. Far from it. A web directory sounds like an excellent idea, but the demand that it be "non-porn", given the subject matter, is rather odd. Recently Jimbo suggested that we should have an link to the Google images search on autofellatio. Would his idea be acceptable to you? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will accept a link to google OneGuy 20:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great. But I'm afraid it's basically just going to show links to a lot of porn sites, whereas currently we go to one very high quality site that doesn't have lots of obtrusive nonsense. Why is google images better, in your view? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it will show links to porn sites not chosen by you or me. Why are you linking to these porn sites and not some other? Every porn website owner would want his own porn site added here. Either link to google, a web directory, or an academic site. Please don't link directly to a commercial porn site selling videos for 50 dollars OneGuy 21:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Every porn site owner won't get his site added. The website, which I did not choose, is a very, very good example of a high quality source of pictures of autofellatio. I will accept the Google alternative, but I think it stinks because we're sending people to websites that we haven't checked and that may contain dialler scams, inappropriate (ie non-autofellatio) content, popups and all kinds of nonsense. I'm sure the videos are worth every penny of fifty bucks to the people who like to buy that kind of thing; meanwhile visitors to that site get free high quality stills and video clips. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The link is this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will accept that link, provided both links to the commercial porn sites are removed OneGuy 21:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. TIMBO (T A L K) 21:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It sure make sense to me. You have added links to commercial porn sites. That is spam. Why did you choose these sites and not some others? OneGuy 21:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain why you characterize these links as spam? This sounds like no meaning of the word spam I have ever encountered. --09:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't choose those sites, but the one with the free pictures and clips is excellent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's an excellent site in your opinion. There are thousands of porn web sites on the internet. Others might argue that their favorite porn site is better than this one. Should we allow the spammers to abuse Wikipedia by using it as an advertisement tool for porn sites? Above you responded, "no," but what valid justification will you have to remove porn spam added to this or other sex related articles when you link to even one commercial porn site? You can't tell them, "oh, I like this site but not yours." That would be double standard. My solution: don't even go there. No link to any porn site that is selling products or making money in anyway. The links must be either academic sites, web directory, or google OneGuy 07:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is supposed to be, here. Yes, some sites are more suitable than others, we choose between different sources all the time and there is no significant "double standard" problem. Should we decide not to link news sites because there are so many to choose from? Or science sites? If not, why suppose that sex sites are any different? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

News sites do not send people millions of spam email; porn spamers do. We cannot allow spamers to abuse the sex articles. What are you going to tell a person who links to his pay porn site? "I like my pay porn site but not yours?" No such nonsense please. No links to any porn site that is selling products or making money in any way. OneGuy 17:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an absolutely ridiculous compromise. By linking to Google, we have no control over the images that the user is going to see. The images are going to be less useful and will certainly contain more porn than the links we had before. OneGuy's arguments are a) he doesn't want us linking to "pay" sites, and b) the image we linked to is too pornographic. The Google hits, however, are chock-full of actual pay-sites, and images that are at least as pornographic. OneGuy's notion that we are washing our hands of the issue because the porn sites are now two-degrees of separation from us is silly. We are harming the reader by a) sending them to sites where we have no control over what they will see, b) sending them to image that may not be as useful as the ones we can link to ourselves, c) sending them to actual pay sites where they may be inundated with pop-ups, spyware and who-knows what else. The "compromise" is the worst possible solution. I'm not sure that a compromise is necessary when it is only the result of a single user's personal crusade. — Asbestos | Talk 09:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are we harming the readers by sending them to google? That's the most ridiculous argument that I have heard. The person who found Wikipedia on the internet already knows how to use google. You say that the link to google is full of porn pictures, but that was a compromise. I would have not linked directly to any page that shows porn. You say that you want the control over what pay porn sites we link. That's exactly the problem I have with linking to commercial porn sites. Why should you have control on that? Do you work for them? Do you get paid? You claim that this was a "single user's personal crusade". Please see the history. I wan not alone in removing the spam links. OneGuy 17:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, we're sending the user out to get trojaned to hell and back where before we had a link to a very, very good specialist site. This issue did seem to be causing a sterile edit war, however, and the compromise breaks that for now. Feel free to suggest an alternative. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can agree all you want with his silly reasoning. Wikipdeia should not be allowed to be abused by spammers to link to pay porn sites OneGuy 17:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please remember where you are. No personal attacks. Remember to be civil. With reference to your baseless insinuation that Asbestos may be working for a porn site, remember that assuming good faith is regarded as a "fundamental principle to any wiki, including Wikipedia."

My comments about the dangers of Google are made from the perspective of a professional with over two decades in information technology. It is not idle speculation when I say that sending our users off randomly to dynamic lists of external websites that include known spoofers, spyware implanters, sources of stealth-installed international autodiallers and the like is not a good thing. I think we were better off using the normal Wikipedia editing processes to decide on the best external sources to use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was not a personal attack or " baseless insinuation." It was intended to emphasize that we cannot be sure whether the person who is adding links to commercial porn sites is directly making money from that site. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We should not allow links to pay porn sites just because someone claims he likes the site. Every spammer is going to claim that he likes his site. As for your argument about security, that's irrelevant. Anyone who is using Wikipedia already knows how to use google, and it's his responsibility to be aware of virus and other security problems on the internet. We are not sending people to some file that might have virus. We are sending him to google. OneGuy 17:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do I "work for them"? Do I "get paid"?? Am I the "spammer" referred to above??? What is the purpose of these insults? Did I add the link? Do you see anything in my edit history that makes me look like someone who adds links to porn sites? Please leave your unnecessary insinuations out of this.

Your insults aside, we do have control over what images we direct people to when we link them directly, and less so when we link to Google. If the image on a site changes we can change the link. Google's hits, however, by their very nature, change regularly. We have much less control. And, as you said, the person who found Wikipedia on the internet already knows how to use google. We don't need to show them the way.

I personally found the image at http://www.gaybigdick.com/ unnecessary. The other site seemed more relevant. It was clearly not a pay-site and had it's own warning on the start page about the site's content. Hundreds of external links at Wikipedia link to sites that make money in some way or another. If you don't like that, propose a policy change. Until then, that argument is utterly irrelevant. — Asbestos | Talk 17:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There were no "personal attacks" in anything I wrote. It was a rhetorical question to emphasize the argument. Yes, google hits change regularly, and we have no control over them. That's exactly the point. We should not directly link to a commercial porn site. The site you prefer has few pictures and a small sample video, but the main purpose of the site is to sell videos. Why should we help that site make money but not other sites? What is so hard to understand about that? The google link was a compromise. I would not link directly to any page that has pictures of porn. The best option would be to link to a well maintained web directory on autofellatio OneGuy 18:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that site only has "few pictures and a small sample video" then you're wrong. It has quite a large selection of free high quality stills and a fair number of clips. Your argument that we shouldn't be helping this chap to sell videos has never applied on Wikipedia. We do not have a bar on linking to commercial sites. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should ever link to pornography sites, commercial or otherwise. Pornography sites are considered (at least) sleazy and disreputable by a substantial segment of the population and it demeans and discredits Wikipedia to link to them. People who are relaxed about pornography should not suppose that they are typical. Surveys have shown that in the United States about 25% of the web-browsing population have visited a pornography web sites at least once, including those who have visited one by mistake. That is a high number, but it is not as high as the 75% who have never visited a pornography web site. Linking to pornography web sites makes Wikipedia problematical to use in precisely those situations where encyclopedias are commonly used, namely schools and libraries. Moreover, I can't see any situation in which there is a need to link to pornography sites. We shouldn't do it. --BM 03:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problem with the google image search link

If moderate safesearch (the default) is on, the search returns nothing useful, at least on the first page. I'm assuming there's no way to make a link to a search that temporarily turns safesearch off. --SPUI (talk) 23:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem, it means the user has to consent to turning safe search off, in accordance with Google's website rules. Nothing to do with us, it's a matter between Google and the user. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added a note next to the link; the whole safesearch thing took me a little while to notice, and others might also not notice it and wonder why the results are useless. --SPUI (talk) 00:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Read the URL, it has safe=off embedded in it. — Davenbelle 01:24, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think "safe=on" and "safe=off", etc only work if you've been through the safe search setup and obtained a cookie. This is to prevent trolls spoofing people to google material that they haven't specifically agreed to see. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I cleared the cookie and it still works fine for me; maybe we should simply remove safe=off from the URL and let the user get what they get per their own preference settings. — Davenbelle 01:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Removed safe=off. — Davenbelle 01:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this, but if we're going to keep it, I added back in the directions to turn it off. --SPUI (talk) 02:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The (selfsuck.com) link is not spam. I have no relation to the site, and I doubt Tony Sidaway does either. --SPUI (talk) 19:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I have no association with any producer or distributor of pornography, whether on or off the web. I do not know the owner of selfsuck.com, or anyone associated with the site. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have a relation to the site or no. I do know however that it's a porn site whose main purpose is to sell porn videos for 50 dollars. I see no reason why we should give that site free advertisement here OneGuy 19:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because it also provides useful free clips and photos. The Walt Disney World site's main purpose is to sell overpriced vacations, but we list their site, since it is relevant. --SPUI (talk) 20:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. I just searched the web, and there are hundreds of autofellatio porn sites with free pictures and videos. Like this site, most of those sites are setup to make money, but they offer some free pictures and video clips on the side. I see no reason why we should just randomly give one of the commercial porn site free advertisement OneGuy 20:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A quick search doesn't reveal any others with nearly as many photos or videos, but I may have missed something. Have you found any others? It doesn't look like dmoz has an autofellatio category, or we could link there. --SPUI (talk) 21:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see dozens of sites with domain name containing autofellatio or selfsuck. This is encyclopedia, not a place to advertise a randomly chosen porn site selling products OneGuy 21:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrong analogy. This article is not about a company called "Autofellatio" in which case it would be relevant to link to their site. —Cantus…☎ 20:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vote on external links

As seems to be the tradition (and it's friendlier than and roughly equivalent to a revert war), let's vote on what external links to include:

No commercial porn sites

1. For images, we already link to google images OneGuy 03:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Cantus…☎ 02:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
3. Davenbelle 02:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
4. Johntex 02:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Andrew pmk 04:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Dover 07:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Reasonable standard. We ought to link to an image, however. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. Absolutely not. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only the one site (solosuck.com)

The listing currently reads:

• solosuck.com A commercial website devoted to autofellatio

1. It seems to have the most free stuff, and is thus the most useful. --SPUI (talk) 21:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Carnildo 22:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) It seems kind of silly to have to vote on every edit to the page.

   Agreed - it seemed like the only thing to stop the revert war. --SPUI (talk) 22:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3. This is a good site for the subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. I'll support this if solosuck and the single image link is voted down. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Seems fine. — Asbestos | Talk 23:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 01:22 Z
7. Flyers13 04:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. Carnildo is right, this is silly. foobaz·✐ 09:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. gcbirzan^talk 20:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. seems reasonable, but option below also does. Sam Hocevar 23:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other

solosuck plus others, or others without solosuck

• solosuck [5] as well as the image link [6] - it has a domain that his irked some but is otherwise relevant and spam/spyware/popup free (unlike what one may find from the google list).

1. Support. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. I'd also go for this. --SPUI (talk) 00:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. I'm not crazy about Solosuck, but there really should be some external links to images. LizardWizard 07:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
4. gcbirzan^talk 19:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Of my two votes, I prefer this one.
5. The image link is just as, if not more, useful than solosuck. — MikeX (talk) 20:00, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
6. I'd also support this option, of course, if additional relevant websites were to be found. Sam Hocevar 23:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Any sites which add useful information (including photographs, videos ands such), regardless of their nature. If you want one replaced, kindly find a replacement providing comparable resources and replace the link instead of removing links to useful information. Jamesday 11:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. Christiaan 22:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment

OneGuy has unilaterally deleted the link to onesuck as "spam". I have reverted it pending the result of these numerous votes. RickK 21:31, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The link was not deleted just by me. It was deleted by several other users. You inserted back a link to porn spam site selling products without any discussion on the talk page OneGuy 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, aren't we discussing it on the Talk page? And isn't there a vote going on right now as to what to do with the link? RickK 22:21, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

We are discussing it, yes, but I haven't seen you discuss it. When you revert to the previous version at least post some justification as to why you think that version is better. This poll was setup just few minutes before you reverted the page. Tony Sidaway and SPU (basically two people) want to insert a link to this site porn site: solosuck.com. If you go to the site, it's basically a site setup to sell video tapes for 50 dollars. Like all other porn sites, it has some sample pictures and video clips, but basically the site is a commercial porn site selling video tapes. Search the web and you will find thousands of other porn sites on this topic selling something. Why should we randomly choose one commercial porn site and give them free advertisement on Wikipedia? Since you reverted the page to the version with spam link, I would like to see your justification OneGuy 22:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you find one with better stills and video clips, or better yet, one with stills and video clips and other useful content, we can discuss whether to list than one. Meanwhile I think solosuck is very good. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's your opinion that this spam site selling video tapes is good. I think it's a pathetic site. Who cares what I or you think? Every spammer thinks his site is excellent. You are linking to a site that is basically setup to sell video tapes. We have many sex related articles. Every spammer wants his site included in these articles because he thinks his site is excellent. Sorry, but they won't, regardless of how good they think their commercial porn is. The link must be either to academic site, a web directory, or to google OneGuy 22:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The only reason why we have to link to the commercial site is because of the people who won't allow a photo of the act to appear on the page. If the photo were kept, we wouldn't need the link. You can't delete both, that is absolutely unacceptable. RickK 23:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

We already have a solution to this. Please see the above discussion. We link to google for images, instead of giving free advertisement to one commercial site chosen by someone who might be getting paid by the spam site OneGuy 23:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. Jimbo wanted the picture linked, not deleted outright. Then Rama drew an image, and I believe at some point the drawing was mistakenly saved on top of the original photo, Autofellatio.jpg. The drawing is also at Autofellatio_drawing.jpg, and the article uses that file. I've tried to revert back to the original photo at Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but Cantus is emboldened by Jimbo's edicts and will have none of it. Since we're voting on whether or not to link the image, NOT delete it, I think the image should be reverted and linked in the article, perhaps under the autofellatio drawing. I'd be happy including that and dropping the gaybigdick link. Who's with me? TIMBO (T A L K) 23:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The clear problems with a Google search link have been enumerated by me and others. It is not acceptable. It is too risky. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's just silly. Linking to google is no more risky than turning on the computer and logging on the internet to do anything OneGuy 23:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sending the user off to random sites of unknown quality is much more dangerous and more hit-and-miss than sending him to a known site of high quality material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a quality material according to whom? I see the site as a poor commercial site that is selling video tapes. Why should we give that site free advertisement? Every spammer wants his site included, and every spammer thinks his site is "quality." By linking to google images, we avoid that problem. The sites are not chosen by us. We are not giving free advertisement to one commercial site. The argument that linking to google is risky is completely bogus. It's no more risky than logging on the internet. OneGuy 00:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is quite rediculous. The "spammer" you keep mentioning above is, of course, Tony Sidaway, who added the link in this edit. Let's not pretend that the link-inclusionists are evil porn-pushers who are trying to make money off of wikipedia. Like I said before, there is no Wikipedia moratorium on linking to sites that make money. Until there is, please stop using that line of argument. Furthermore, as you say you weren't the only person getting rid of the link, but you appear to be the only person here arguing for its removal. I don't think wikipedia should be held hostage to the whims of one editor against all others. There is a vote here in progress and there are currently seven votes to none on having the link. Your arguments hold no water, as has been repeatedly shown above. You have also repeatedly insinuated that those of us who want to keep the link are somehow associated with "spammers" who are, in turn, associated with porn-pushers. These constant insinuations are getting a little beyond a boring agenda-pushing editor. Until it looks like more people are siding with you, please stop your personal crusade. — Asbestos | Talk 00:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you or anyone else is offended by being called a spamer, then please don't link to a porn site that is selling porn video tapes. It's not true that I am the only person who is removing the spam or posting comments on this talk page. Cantus, Davenbelle, and jguk have posted comments in favor too. They don't have to argue as thoroughly because I have already debunked all the justifications used to link this site. What more is left to say? You have not responded to any of my arguments, so let me repeat. There are thousands of porn web sites on the internet. Every spamer wants his link added everywhere he can. Every spamer claims that his site is excellent, high quality with "free stuff." Should we allow the spammers to abuse Wikipedia by using it as an advertisement tool for porn sites? What valid justification will you have to remove porn spam added to this or other sex related articles when you link to even one commercial porn site? Why should we link to this commercial porn site and leave out thousand others? Why give this site special treatment and help it make money via Wikipedia? I am sorry to tell you but that can't be allowed. We should not link to any porn site that is selling products or making money in anyway. The links must be either academic sites, web directory, or google OneGuy 02:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of "it's the best one we could find" don't you understand? --SPUI (talk) 02:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of "every spamer thinks his site is best" don't you understand? OneGuy 02:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of "I'm not a fucking spammer" don't you understand? --SPUI (talk) 02:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Every spamer says that :)) Even if you are not, the next person who adds the link to some sex related page would be. I see no reason why we should make an exception by linking this commercial porn site OneGuy 02:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, you're just going to have to accept that quality is something that one judges. In my personal judgement, having many stills of high technical quality showing the subject matter, and even some movie clips, and not have much in the way of obstrusive ads, equates to quality in this circumstance. Your mileage may vary.
If you believe that exposing users to a range of unvetted links, some of which will certainly carry spyware, viruses and dialer software is "no more risky than logging on to the internet" (what ever "logging on to the internet" might mean) you're simply and categorically wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the quality of that site is of a cheap porn site that is making money by selling video tapes. We should not allow that cheap low quality porn site to make money by using Wikipedia. And yes, you can get hacked, ping bombed, and nuked just by logging on the internet. Your argument about risk involved with using google are completely bogus. It's also possible that the site that you link is a scam, and once you send your money, you don't get the tapes. Everything is possible if you want to use those kind of absurd arguments. It's also interesting to note that Tony himself proposed google solution as a compromise, but once he saw his favorite commercial porn site removed, he went back to edit war OneGuy 02:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that my concerns about unvetted websites is bogus is hardly worthy of response. I also note that you falsely accuse me of edit warring. Look at the history list; I do not edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk

07:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the claim that we should not link to google because of security is completely bogus, as I explained already above. Interesting, you say you do not do edit war, but this edit was started by you when you asked SPUI on his talk page to add the site again, going back on your google's comprise. You also responded positively to his request of "tag team action" because he already used his 3 reverts OneGuy 07:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to get familiarized with a few general knowledge encyclopedias so you get a grasp of the concept. —Cantus…☎ 02:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --SPUI (talk) 02:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Tony Sidaway, can you explain this discrepancy. Yesterday you told me you didn't choose the site: I didn't choose those sites, but the one with the free pictures and clips is excellent, but according to Asbestos, you are the person who selected the site: A website devoted to autofellation OneGuy 06:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I did choose it but I promptly forgot about it and got on with my life. Scary, huh? ;) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hard to believe that you forgot something like that, but I will give you the benefit of doubt :) It does make sense though why you would so vehemently insist on linking this site, even going back on your google compromise. I also noticed that you specifically asked SPUI on his talk page to add the site today, starting this revert war again OneGuy 07:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually he said that AFTER I added it. [7] is from 12:52 and [8] is from 13:12. How long will it take for you to realize that we are NOT SPAMMERS and have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITE? On the other hand, Jimbo is a pornographer. It's true; I read it online. --SPUI (talk) 07:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo is not spamming this article by adding links to commercial porn sites. You are. If he does it, I will give up and accept that spamming Wikipedia with commercial porn sites is an official policy OneGuy 07:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Bomis had that sort of image, we could end the whole dispute by linking there. Wikipedia's bandwidth is paid for by profits from Bomis, so any income Jimbo would make from such a link would probably find its way back to Wikipedia. --Carnildo 07:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Spamming Wikipedia with commercial porn sites" is not an official policy; linking to useful sites, whatever their status, is. Give up and accept that. --SPUI (talk) 07:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry. It's your assertion that it's a policy to allow porn spamers to spam sex articles on Wikipedia. We have always deleted spam that people add to Wikipedia, and linking to a porn site that is selling video tapes is spam OneGuy 08:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please. Sit down for a couple hours or a couple years and think about what you're saying. Think about how it makes no sense. Think about how your head is so far up your ass that you could perform autofellatio if you had a hole in your chest. --SPUI (talk) 08:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, personal insults never bother me, but whatever you write might bother you as examples of abuse. What you wrote above went into archive. Having said that, I will just repeat: linking to a porn site that is selling video tapes is spam. It doesn't become "not spam" just because you say you like the commercial porn site. We have always deleted spam that people add to Wikipedia. Why should we make an exception for you? OneGuy 08:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hah, and your calling Tony and me (and presumably the others that voted for the link) a spammer isn't abuse? Abuse your kids and they grow up to pull the plug from your breathing apparatus. Or not. Anyway, they're not intended at personal attacks, but attacks on the tactics and arguments you use. --SPUI (talk) 08:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are linking to a porn site that is selling videos for 50 dollars. If you don't want to be called spamers, quit spamming. It's pretty simple. Your emotional outburst above were only personal attacks, but you can continue posting these responses. I don't mind. They go in archive as examples of abuse by you, not me :)) OneGuy 08:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Listen. I am not spamming. I am providing a useful external link. Go suck yourself off, and shut the fuck up. I only wish this was anywhere near as satisfying as going up to you and beating the shit out of you. But it's not, which is why I'm doing it so much. It's actually not satisfying at all; I do it in the hope that the big bold text will get through to you somehow. --SPUI (talk) 09:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is really fun, I must admit :)) You are linking to a site that is selling porn video tapes. That is spamming. Why are you spamming Wikipedia? Please stop spamming. Find an academic site, a web directory, or non commercial site, instead of spamming Wikipedia OneGuy 09:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, you can use the word "spamming" a dozen times in your next few posts as well if you think it will get SPUI to blow his top again, scoring you some minor points. But the fact remains that you are in a minority of people who think that the site should not be there, and certainly the only person trying to label the rest of us "spammers." Keep using the word. Maybe you'll convince someone else. — Asbestos | Talk 09:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not in the "minority." You just have one more vote. Please see above. If you want this dispute over, why can't you find some academic or non-commercial site? You only have one more vote till now OneGuy 09:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It does, however, become "not spam" because he does not stand to benefit financially in any way from the addition of the link. --Carnildo 08:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, we don't know that, but even if he is not getting paid, once you allow linking to commercial porn sites, you open the door for the next person who would want his commercial site linked too, and he would be getting paid for it. Why should we make exception for this site, but reject the rest of spamers? There should be no exceptions. OneGuy 08:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And if that site is relevant and useful, then maybe it should be kept. Let's dissect this. "Commercial porn sites". Porn is POV, so we're left with "commercial sites". We link to many of those. Some of them were probably added by the webmasters, and kept because they're useful links. --SPUI (talk) 08:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are thousands of "relevant" commercials porn sites. We should not link to one site chosen by someone to help that site make money using Wikipedia. Is it POV to call a porn site porn site? That has to be the most absurd statement posted this week on Wikipedia :) No, we don't always link to a commercial site that is selling stuff. We remove it when we see someone posted spam on Wikipedia. We should not make an exception for you. See Islam article on how all the links are to either academic sites or web directory OneGuy 09:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia links to a whole lot of commercial web sites. Not all of them are unique—for example, Daytona Beach, Florida links to Mapquest, making them money, when we could as easily link to Yahoo maps. So what makes this link different? Only that they sell pornography? foobaz·✐ 09:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though there may be thousands of commercial "porn" sites, the rub is this: we want to pick the best one. If it has some free, spy/mal/adware free, relevant content, then there is a very good case of including it in the external links. Rather than sending the reader off to wade through the muck of crappy, malicious sites, we can provide a verified, good one. If another site comes along by a "spammer" and is better than the one we've got, why not replace it? I see no ethical inconsistency to say that we put in one link but not every link. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, porn sites should be exception. I have never received a spam email from mapquest.com, but I do receive spam from porn spammers on how to make my penis larger. Given that kind of abuse by porn spammers, and given that porn spammers do abuse internet everywhere, we should not be giving free links to commercial porn sites when some spammer claims he really likes some commercial porn site he thinks we should link. OneGuy 09:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, if you have evidence that the owner of the site we're linking to is a spammer, please let us know about it. I honestly don't want to post links to sites owned by spammers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I give up. Therefore, to save face, I will randomly announce that you have been trolled, you have lost, have a nice day. It's obviously true; don't try to deny it. --SPUI (talk) 09:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is I who have been trolled; good job, OneGuy. I have lost; I will thus have a nice day. --SPUI (talk) 23:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• wow, another poll! can you nest polls? — Davenbelle 02:12, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes

1. --SPUI (talk) 02:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: There are three options so far in the poll: No commercial porn sites, Only the one site (solosuck.com) and Other. Timbo and SPUI have taken the liberty to cast a vote in the latter two options. I believe it is illegal to vote twice in a poll. Timbo and SPUI should make up their minds and vote for one option only, otherwise we will have to either, remove all four votes from them and let them vote again, or nullify one of the options in the poll. —Cantus…☎ 15:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is not necessarily illegal to vote twice in a poll, though it's sometimes wise to make it plain whether, for the purposes of a particular poll, multiple selections will be considered. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. At least one voter has made the very sensible reason for his multiple selection known; he wants two external links but would settle for one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's go IRV, that's how I mean my two votes. --gcbirzan^talk 19:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that we're going to keep adding polls until, in the end, we find out that the first poll was in fact about the last we'd added... and the circle would be completed. :) Rama 08:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are some people who think this has already happened. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peremptory revert

I made a radical change to the article, indeed a fresh start. I think it was a big improvement which cut through a lot of junk.

But somebody reverted my change without even an Edit summary or a comment on this talk page. This sucks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, now the count is 2 peremptory reverts. I'll just ignore those, since they didn't explain their changes anywhere. I'm done, any way:

• autofellatio is a serious article - without pictures
• images of autofellatio has the pictures and related stuff (i.e., use of the image or idea in porn)

I hope this settles the matter. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, why? I'm tempted to revert instantly, but I'll wait for an explanation. What's the point? Why are you splitting the article? It's not too long or unwieldly or anything. --SPUI (talk) 16:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems that images of autofellatio has a lot of text of autofellatio, a drawing of autofellatio, and a link to an image of autofellatio. Hmmm. I also don't see why there should be a split - the people who are against the images in autofellatio would presumably be against those same images in a different article. And who said pictures aren't serious? P.S. Sorry for reverting you, Ed, but you must have been kidding with that version that I reverted. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you talked to the people who object to the drawing and the image link? I bet they'd be satisfied to have everything tucked away in the sidebar article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:40, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Autofellatio is itself tucked away – people have to go to the autofellatio article to find this "potentially offensive" content. And those who could get there by random page could just as easily get to images of autofellatio via that route. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Limeheadnyc for the most part. It is a nice idea Uncle Ed has, but I don't think it works. Here is why:

1. For one thing, how "tucked-away" an article is will vary in the future. It may only be a matter of time before any article remotely dealing with sexuality links to every other article remotely dealing with sexuality. If someone does not understand the term "autofellatio", they could easily follow a link to "images of autofellatio" without being prepared for what they are about to see.
2. Also, while the context an image is displayed in does matter, some things are more absolute than others. For example, many people would support a tastefull picture of a clitoris at the "clitoris" article, but not at an article on "human" or "woman" or "anatomy". However, few people would support a picture of child pornography even on that article's page.
3. It would be nice if Wikipedia had the following two bits of technology: (1) a way to tag images as "potentially offensive", coupled with a way to set your browser to hide only those images so-tagged (2) a way to tag pages as "potentially offensive", coupled with a way to keep those pages off the Random page feature. I realize there will still be arguments about what to tag, but this technology would still be helpful since it would lower the stakes of the argument by giving harbor to both sides of almost any inclusion/exclusion debate.
4. We should err on the side of caution. Someone who is of legal age and legally permitted to do so where they live can always do further research off site from Wikipedei. We really do not need to imagine that we will be the source for all knowledge, or even the pointer to all knowledge, in order to fulfill a mission as the best encyclopeic and free resource available. Johntex 19:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding point (3), see Wikipedia:Descriptive image tagging. Since "potentially offensive" is such a subjective criteria, I'm working on a system to let people decide for themselves what they consider "potentially offensive". --Carnildo 20:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is excellent news. I will see if I can contribute to your efforts. Johntex 20:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John and Carnildo, the image tagging thing sounds like it's on the right track. I'll think I'll abandon the anatomically improbable in favor of the technically feasible. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are some practical technical ways you could judge offensiveness. One that has occurred to me is that (in addition to other image control facilities) each inline image that actually does get displayed has a button that any user can press to conceal it. The system could record the number of image views and the number of people who press the conceal button. This could be used as a feed to the classification system. But it would be an invitation to vandalism (like someone runs a script to load and then conceal a picture of a fluffy bunny rabbit a thousand times, so it gets classed as objectionable).

this image has been protected from concealing due a concealing war if you wish to conceal/unconceal this immage please disscuss this on the talk page.Geni 04:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we provide the ability for the user to conceal a picture on his display, this should never be disabled. The way I see it is that it would be best if the proportion of conceals would provide some feedback to the process of deciding how a given image should be classified. It would just be another metric. Sudden changes in the conceal rate would tend to point to conceal-vandalism, whereas a steady conceal rate would be suggestive of the true level of offence given by an image to those readers who chose to visit the article. It's just an idea and in my opinion may not be the best for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On balance I think descriptive tagging is the way to go--as long as the desriptions are neutral and don't have POV stuff like "unsuitable for children". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Errant speedy converted to VfD. The vote is currently 5 to 0. Vacuum c 23:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

A user-friendly encyclopedia

Johntex, earlier you said:

If someone does not understand the term "autofellatio", they could easily follow a link to "images of autofellatio" without being prepared for what they are about to see.

But I don't think that's much of an objection. If someone is reading about sex and click on a link called images of..., I'm fairly sure they'll realize that they're about to see something sex-related.

I'm not trying to censor the encyclopedia, just make it a bit more comfortable for non-contributors to enjoy. Wikipedia is not primarily a blog, but a project to create a free encyclopedia to benefit humankind. Jimbo's philanthropy is based on this.

Giving users a means of shielding themselves from offense is just being user-friendly. (If kids deliberately look up the word fuck or articles on clitoris or miniskirt, then they'll certainly find what they're looking for. I'm just concerned with someone who is casually browsing and would prefer to avoid a shock. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

On that note editors might to take a look at meta:End-user content suppression. —Christiaan 16:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said already, if that is implemented, by default the option should be off. If someone wants it, he/she can turn it on. Both Google and Yahoo image search follow this rule. By default porn pictures are not shown. OneGuy 21:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Little known fact: google $\neq \;$ gospel. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image confusion

From what I understand, User:Ahoerstemeier wrongly/accidentally deleted Image:Autofellatio.jpg at 06:23, 8 Mar 2005. User:Guanaco then commented out the linkimage template because Image:Autofellatio.jpg then went to the commons drawing, the same as the one inline at the article. I've left a note Ahoerstemeier's talk page asking that he promptly reupload the picture. In the meantime, I'm going to put the link template back in if it's all the same to everyone. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved – I got the image from a wikipedia mirror and reuploaded it. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another edit war?

Now we're warring over whether the drawing is OK for the page? What the fuck? --SPUI (talk) 03:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought the drawing was indisputably innocuous, but apparently we are edit warring. Anyway, if the drawing here is offensive, I'd hate to see the reaction to list of sex positions. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes we are in an Edit war, and YES I find the image offensive, I also find the list of sex positions offensive (and yes, I am married)....but I'll deal with that at another time.--198 03:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why edit war here and not at the list of sex positions? TIMBO (T A L K) 03:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I seen this article 1st (You shown me this list).--198 03:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well it just struck me as odd that on your user page you put "Autofellatio--I will revert on site if I see that porn picture, I don't care about the 3-revert rule in this case--198 03:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)" Yet you seem only slightly disapproving of the (wholly similar) drawings at list of sex positions. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know, I want to focus on this page for now and establish a precedent...than move in on the other ones.--198 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You already have all the precedent you should need. Controversial images can be linked, it's in policy. What you may lack, however, is consensus for the particular edit you are repeatedly trying to do, to the extent of openly declaring a no-holds barred revert war. That won't get you anywhere, except perhaps down the slippery slope of dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page protected? There's nothing to debate here: the drawing is fine. This is the first time anyone's raised an objection to the drawing. Nice precedent for the POV warriors.. can I get any page protected on my preferred version by reverting it three times fast? Rhobite 04:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Random POV-warriors shouldn't have the power to get a page protected so fast. Let them run out of reverts and then block them if they continue. Protection should be used on major edit wars with multiple parties involved, not simple situations like this. — Asbestos | Talk 11:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hence begins the slide down the slope of {{linkimage}}... – flamurai (t) 13:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

So, since the general consensus seems to be that the protection was unnecessary are unilateral, could we unprotect it..? — Asbestos | Talk 13:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IfD

198 put Image:Autofellatio.jpg on IfD again. I guess that's to be expected if he was so offended by the drawing. TIMBO (T A L K) 07:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow

This page illustrates why Wikipedia makes even Indian democracy look like a model of efficiency and organization. I particularly enjoyed the twenty-page debate on the vote on how to conclude the vote. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. 69.203.80.227 12:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, it would probably have been easier if we didn't have trolls lurking around every corner. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 16:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archive?

This page is currently 265 kb long! I say we get someone to archive the discussion relating to Autofellatio.jpg, as this takes up most of the talk page. I don't dare do it without consent though. :P →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 20:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment about page size

This is ridiculously too big. Even after archiving the polls and related discussions this talk page is bigger than the article on George W. Bush.

The size of the archive file just doesn't bear thinking about.

If anybody is a wizard with refactoring, now's the time to show that wizardry! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2nd Edit war

I really feel we should link that drawing. I don't care about the three revert rule, there are children who look at this website everyday, I am willing to fight to protect them!--198 10:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. I'd be more worried about protecting children from bullies than from information. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-13 10:20 Z

there is something quite interesting in the fact that some people want to censor some articles (typically, related to oral and homosexual sex) because they are concerned that others might be shocked, but I have seen very few people who stated that they were actualy shocked themselves. Perhaps this commandable, yet over-zealous concern, should be moderated.

198, I understand your concern, and I would really like to advise you to respect the rules of Wikipedia, in the very interest of the cause that you would like to defend. Rama 10:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to address this question of children "who look at this website everyday." In general, children do not know anything about sex, and have no opportunity of seeing what it is like. An encyclopedia is probably the best place for them to see this kind of picture. Of course very small children should probably not be using the web unsupervised, or reading books written for adults. But the picture in question is in any case utterly harmless, just a picture of two people making love. (Got 198's two current edit crusades muxed ip there) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Young children do look at Wikipedia every day, but it is rare for them to see this article. They would have to actually type "Autofellatio", click a link from another sex-related article, or reach this page by clicking Random page, which has a probability of hitting this page of ~1/500000. Guanaco 14:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I feel the drawing is an appropriate trade-off in this case. Autofellatio is not a particularly offensive topic to most, as far as I can tell. And I do care about the three-revert rule, and am willing to enforce it. - Mark 16:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And so again one man's personal crusade has managed to get this page protected. Why is this necessary? If he only reverts three times there's no problem, as he's the only person on this crusade, and if he reverts more than three times he is in violation of Wikipedia's policies and can be blocked. I don't see why we need to raise the status of random POV-warriors by granting them the power to get a page protected every time they feel like warring. — Asbestos | Talk 15:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)