Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Autofellatio 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the image below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the images's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The votes were 64 to 48 in favor of deletion. dbenbenn | talk 17:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio 2

[edit]

March 30 - Vote Begins

[edit]
    • Keep. The previous image Autofellatio.jpg had copyvio issues. This has none. The previous image was also being used by the autofellatio vandal nonstop, which spawned a raving lynchmob of victims. This picture is not being used in vandalism, and hopefully it won't now that the linking compromise (linking to the image from autofellatio rather than displaying it inline) has been more or less settled. In any case, vandalism is not a valid reason to start deleting material.
    This picture is also of better quality and illustrates the subject perfectly. The only reason (that I can see) that people can argue to delete this is personal distaste. Well, Wikipedia is not censored for minors and it may contain material that, while objectionable to some, nonetheless serves a purpose in the appropriate article. And for goodness sakes, it's even linked from the article. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Well, the picture was used in vandalism this evening (EST) (you can see my talk page history, for one), and I guess I fail to understand the compelling need for a high-resolution, close-up photo shot of what is already perfectly well illustrated, in a less inflammatory manner, there on the existing article page. --MC MasterChef 01:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I stand corrected. In any case, that's bogus to say that it should be deleted because of vandalism. I assume it was using the double-redirect trick – that's a problem with the wiki, and one that I think has been brought up with the appropriate people and will hopefully be fixed soon(ish). We can't just start deleting material that vandals use. Out of context (especially bombing a user talk page), many pictures may well prove to be offensive to the average user. The question really comes down to merits of the photograph. It is a clear, accurate depiction of the subject. I don't think it's any more graphic than the subject necessitates. Should there be no image at all, then? I tend to disagree very strongly with that kind of censorship. The photo is much more informative than the illustration (although I suppose that's the point some are making – that it's too informative).
    I think a better solution might be to look into suppressing the image when it's linked to that way the vandal does it, if that's possible. (I believe some people brought it up at the last IfD but never followed it up). If it's possible to shrink the image here but not alter the file (which one can view directly here), I think that would be a good idea. If all else fails, maybe shrinking the image would be an apt compromise.
    I'm just saying, though, that many people voted to delete autofellatio.jpg from a sort of cost-benefit analysis pov, which I think can be solved creatively instead of deleting the image outright. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Uploaded only to prove a point. There is already a PD image of the subject. Thuresson 01:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure that's patently false. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Assuming that there are no copyright problems, this image is fine. Rhobite 02:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. A copyright-problem-free photograph displaying autofellatio is encyclopedic. It's better than the copyrighted image that was just deleted, and more vivid than the line drawing currently displayed inline. It is {{linkimage}}-ed too. Image:Adolf.Hitler.jpg has been recently used to vandalize user pages—should we move to delete that too? —Markaci 2005-03-30 T 02:28 Z
    • Keep. The image is free of copyright problems, and illustrates the subject matter quite well. --Carnildo 02:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete as much as I dislike censorship, this is bound to be long term unusable by its copyright. Find me a legitimate GFDL or CC-by-SA or PD photo and I'll vote keep on it.  ALKIVAR™ 02:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Can you surmise for us how you think this image might become unusable when "anyone can use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder and image provider are credited"? This is actually less restrictive than a GFDL and CC-by-SA licence as far as I can tell. —Christiaan 08:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. This time I gotta disagree with you, Alkivar my dearest. —RaD Man (talk) 07:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Isn't really needed. Will harm Wikipedia more than it helps. The image has no place in an encyclopedia. Still, I appreciate Christiaan's efforts to get permission for this image. --Duk 02:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting Continues

1st Debate
[edit]
    • No image is really needed Duk, and it's not a question of need, its a question of encyclopedic value, which it clearly is. I think the opposite will be the case in terms of harm done if this image is deleted on grounds of self-censorship to appease a few people who are offended by bodily function. —Christiaan 09:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      I'm not offended by bodily function, and don't have a problem with this image personally. My vote is based on what I think is best for Wikipedia, for a bunch of different reasons. Please don't ascribe incorrect motivations to my vote that belittle it. Doing so betrays an intolerance for other people's views. --Duk 22:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      I didn't say you were offended and I didn't ascribe any motive on your part. I believe the harm will be done if the image is deleted and I believe your argument that it will harm Wikipedia if it stays is appeasing a few people who are offended by bodily function, thus participating in self-censorship and diluting Wikipedia, of which the ultimate goal is to spread all human knowledge. —Christiaan 21:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      OK, you weren't ascribing the comments to my vote, even though they were posted as a response to it.
      As far as self-censorship and diluting Wikipedia and the harm you speak of, this is nothing new; we make judgments about what to keep and what to delete all the time, yet objectionable images seem to get a defacto protection under the banner of anti-censorship. It erodes the community's right to decide what we may or may not include in Wikipedia. The image isn't needed, there are plenty of external links. The value it adds to the page is minuscule compared to the damage images like this will cause the project. This is a judgment based on several different arguments. Duk 23:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      Who says it's objectionable? This is a subjective matter. And I'd ask that you do not attack those of us who are arguing on grounds of censorship, implying that we don't have the interests of WIkipedia in mind and stating that we are eroding the community's right to decide. We are clearly doing nothing of the such and I think it's pretty obvious in this argument who is not being up front with their reasoning.
      This is a issue of great importance. This debate is less about an image and more about which cultural point of view will prevail on the English Wikipedia. We are setting precedents and it's my wish that Wikipedia does not go down the path of self-censorship. It may seem to you that such images get a "defacto protection under the banner of anti-censorship", but has it occurred to you what kind of treatment triggers this reaction in the first place? And please don't give me the "we make judgments about what to keep and what to delete all the time" argument. Following this logic nothing could ever be considered self-censorship. It is not your place to tell me what I shouldn't be able to view on grounds of objectionability; this is my judgment to make as a reader. For me this image is of great encyclopedic value as it demonstrates clearly an act that some people think is not possible, and it does so in an encyclopedic article about that very act. —Christiaan 12:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      ...This debate is less about an image and more about which cultural point of view will prevail on the English Wikipedia... I'm not worried about which point of veiw will prevail, rather I'm interested in striving for a netural point of view. That means putting aside my own politics and preconceived ideas. When passing editorial judgment on an image like this I think about our audience, our customers, the consequences of our actions, how best to achieve our goals. My personal politics and cultural point of view aren't important.
      I'm sensitive to the concerns of people regarding censorship, but when I see a person trying to legitimize porn under the banner of anti-censorship, while at the same time getting in constant revert wars and censoring the contributions of others who's politics he doesn't agree with, then I have to question whether that person is interested in a neutral point of view, or his own point of view. --Duk 16:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      cough*cough* ...oh excuse me, I think I just vomited all over myself. How can you say all that in all seriousness? I know what your politics are in this regard and it's laughable to suggest you have put them aside considering some of the comments you have made on email lists. Hehe, give me break. Yours truly, the porn legitimiser, Christiaan 19:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      In all seriousness, politics don't interest me, I have never belonged to a political party, and I have never been a religious person. But I respect the views of people who are, and I respect your convictions too, although in this case disagree that anti-censorship is the dominant argument. You might be surprised how many of your views I share.
      Also, seriously; ...please don't give me the "we make judgments about what to keep and what to delete all the time" argument.. How can you reject an editorial judgment argument, in favor of censorship-like label, yet not apply it to your own reverts on politically charged pages and admit substantial censorship?--Duk 19:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      Because it's not an editorial decision, you've clearly argued for reasons other than editorial, and so have I. You've said it will do damage if it stays and I said it will do damage it is removed. These are not editorial arguments. —Christiaan 20:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      I don't understand your response; did you answer my question and agree that your frequent reverts of other editor's contributions is censorship (since you're not too fond of editorial judgment)?--Duk 20:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      I'll repeat: most day-to-day activity of editing and reverting on Wikipedia, including mine, is based on editorial arguments ("this will make the article better", "this won't" etc. etc.). The argument we are having however is based on this image "Will harm Wikipedia more than it helps" and 'deleting this image will harm Wikipedia more than it helps'. These are not editorial arguments, do you see? Uh, and for the record, I am fond of editorial judgment, and you can quote me on that, thanks. —Christiaan 21:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      I don't believe that pornographic images will improve our articles, I think that they will harm the articles, and the project in general (this is an editorial judgment). For example, if we add enough porn to the project it will get us banned in places it currently isn't (like work places), this will lower the value of the article and the project in general. Also, the image isn't necessary, there are lots of external links (this is an editorial judgment). The entire subject isn't encyclopedic (this is an editorial judgment). And now, for the first time, the least important of my arguments; we should weigh the value (insignificant in this case) of some materials, with the sensitivity of a very large number of our readers who are disturbed by images like this (this might be self-censorship, but I think of it as a value judgment).
      Again, I'm disturbed that a wide spectrum of valid arguments are ignored in favor of a black and white, overly simplified and incorrect anti-censorship label.--Duk 21:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      The intention of pornography is to cause sexual arousal, therefore it's a matter of context, and this image of a man sucking his penis in an encyclopedic article about a man sucking his penis is not intended to cause sexual arousal but to inform of the act of Autofellatio. So your statement that it is pornography is your opinion but that's all, and it certainly makes for interesting reading for you to then go on and call your opponents arguments over simplified. Clearly an image of a man sucking his penis in an article about a man sucking his penis improves that article. How you can state otherwise is beyond me. I think your argument that "the entire subject isn't encyclopedic" just goes to show that you're not putting your politics aside at all. To then go on and argue that the image will harm the project in general because some people find it offensive is to argue for self-censorship. Now if you want conflate self-censorship with normal editing then fine, let's debate on that basis: The reason most day-to-day edits, including my own, are not self-censorship is because they are not made on the basis that if they weren't made then someone might get offended; they're made on the basis of making the article more informative. You have clearly stated that one of your reasons is that some readers may be "disturbed" by the image. As much as you'd like to call this a "value judgment" it is actually the very definition of self-censorship. Now, do you think we should remove everything that the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and North Korea find disturbing so as to ensure no harm is done in the way of their citizens being blocked from viewing Wikipedia content? If not, why not? —Christiaan 22:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      I clarified my comment above. Adding porn to articles harms them and the project in general by getting us banned in various places (this is an editorial jugement).--Duk 22:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      Sure, pornography's intension is to arouse, although this image doesn't do much for me. But that isn't the only thing that pornography does. It also offends people, and gets people in trouble at work, and reduces the value of our project by limiting access. What good is adding information to articles when it also reduces the number of people that can take advantage of our project? But this is only part of my argument, and I'm not conflate self-censorship with normal editing. To view it that way is to ignore a large part of the argument in favor of a simple, black and white self-censorship argument.--Duk 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      As far as censoring for the various governments that you mention (and censorship in general), I'm against this. Freedome of information and pornography are really very different topics. Porn isn't really necissary in this case, while information that may offend some governments for political reasons usually is very necissary. Removing a pornagraphic image that isnt necissary (and harmfull to the project to boot) isnt censorship or self-censorship- its editorial jugement. --Duk 00:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Voting Continues (1)
[edit]
    • Keep. The vandalism can easily be converted, plus this is a better example of the technique in question than the first photo. Zscout370 02:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, since copyright seems to be solved. I can't see that use in vandalism is a valid reason to delete. — Asbestos | Talk 08:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. As I noted earlier about the previous picture, "seeing is believing." Quite a few people are skeptical that autofellatio is possible, and that photo is pretty convincing. The drawing is insufficient. Just as a picture is worth 1,000 words, a photo is worth about 50 drawings. The vandalism argument is untenable, and not worth further consideration. LizardWizard 08:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think these efforts to "purify" WIkipedia are becoming a real problem. I would hope enough Wikipedians have the sense to vote keep for this image, but I really think another solution needs to be found to negate the urge of some Wikipedians to involve themselves in self-censorship. A picture of a man sucking his own penis in an article about a man sucking his own penis is of encyclopedic value. To argue otherwise appears very disengenious to me, so I at least appreciate those who are arguing in favour of self-censorship; at least then we can have an honest debate. —Christiaan 08:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • There is already a PD image of a man sucking his penis, hence a non-PD image is unnecessary. Thuresson 17:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh, then, perhaps you might point us to this mysterious picture? —Christiaan 21:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I believe everyone involved have seen the mysterious picture before. Thuresson 23:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Yow! Is everybody built like that drawing anatomically except me?Gzuckier 18:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Sadily the drawing isn't a sufficent replacement. We could have a drawing of the penis going in one ear and out the other just as easily... A photograph is much better for demonstrating that this really is possibleGmaxwell 13:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Probably we should rename this drawing "Sketch of mutant whose penis can reach above the centerline between his nipples" Gzuckier 18:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good illustration for the article. Noisy | Talk 09:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep If I start using this image Image:George-W-Bush.jpeg to vandalise people's user pages, can I get it nominated for deletion? Please? Zeromacnoo 14:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      *Sigh* – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
      Spare us the thought. —Christiaan 22:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep --SPUI (talk) 16:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep--what Timbo said. Exploding Boy 17:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete-- unencyclopedic vandal magnet. Firebug 17:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Note: This vote was user's 11th edit. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Timbo- Does this make my comment invalid? What is the required minimum number of edits before one is qualified to comment on a request for deletion? Firebug 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      No, not as such. If there is a great number of votes from usernames with few edits, though, it's suspicious. I think that may or may not have been the case in the last autofellatio.jpg vote, and I'm not sure if they were discounted or not. (It's up to the discretion of the admin doing the deleting). I wouldn't be worried about your vote not being counted, though. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - we have more important things to do than be voting for pictures which are claimed to be "vandal magnets" but are only due to being in the limelight. --Oldak Quill 17:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Perhaps being on Wikipedia for all of three weeks and having recieved nothing but vandalism on my talk page thus far has had the effect of setting me a little on edge. The vote appears to be going fairly strongly in favor of keeping the picture; I still don't understand the need for it, really, but assuming the consensus persists that it is a necessary and vital contribution to the article, would it at least be possible for someone to look into the feasibility of, say, blocking the ability to redirect a page straight to an image, or maybe blocking the use of redirects in the User_Talk namespace? I'm sure there's some way those could be used in a proper and constructive manner, but nothing comes to mind as of right now. I understand that the acts of a few vandals shouldn't be seen as representative of the Wikipedia community at large, and I'm really not going to be crying myself to sleep after being redirected to a picture of a naked man, but it's still not especially welcoming, y'know? That's all I've got to say. --MC MasterChef 19:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Are there any situations where it is legitimate to redirect a page straight to a picture file? If not, then that ability should be disabled. If there are legitimate uses for this feature, then a short blacklist should be added to prevent redirection to certain specific pictures that have been commonly used for vandalism. Firebug 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      That sounds like the thing to do. Whether or not we keep this exact picture, the very sneaky way the vandal uses it will remain. We can't guarantee that wikipedia will purge itself of every picture that could be construed as offensive when a user talk page blind-redirects to it. Just as we don't want usernames like Adolf Hitler or butt sex even though they are appropriate articles (see Wikipedia:Username), we also don't want people being redirected to pictures out of their encyclopedic context. This is a vandalism problem, and it is bigger than one picture.
      I could be wrong, but it seems the only thing we're doing to combat this douchebag vandal is to block the usernames he creates (after he's bombed various user talk pages). What we need to do, IMHO, is block by the vandal's IP (if that's feasible) as well as investigate the creative options I mentioned above (as well as any others). TIMBO (T A L K) 20:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting Continues

2nd Debate
[edit]
    • DELETE - Ironically I who actually abhor the pornography laws that exist, have become involved in issues that involve prudent constraint against excesses of those who seem oblivious to much more major dangers to human freedom, as long as they can delight in congratulating themselves with glee at imposing the burdens of their peculiar tastes and sensibilities (or lack of them) upon everyone else involved in this project.
      When the previous image was being voted upon I stated: "I am against IMPOSING censorship upon others who seek to publish such things through their own resources, but this is an internal matter of the Wikimedia projects, and a policy of greater consideration and discretion than this image represents is definitely appropriate. To say that this image is in any way "necessary", or that including this image serves the overall purposes of an Encyclopedia project is ABSURD. An adult would be arrested, thrown into jail, and accused of pedophilia in many countries if he or she were to show this image to a minor— it thus provides an apparently legitimate excuse for all manner of institutions or governments and the herd majorities of most societies to seek to ban or constrain access to Wikipedia." That argument still stands. I also quoted George Washington's statement: Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
      I repeat: I am NOT a person who supports legal censorship of others, BECAUSE I am a person who is considerate of others differences, and does not seek to impose my tastes upon others, but I DO support prudent self-censorship, that takes into consideration one's audience, which is in this case potentially most of the world.
      There are adequate illustrations, and there are links to extensive Google search for web images on the Autofellatio page. I do not oppose them because it keeps the project itself relatively safe from becoming quite so easy a target of the close-minded.
      The picture doesn't shock you, it doesn't shock me, but it irritates me profoundly that there are people who have so little regard for many of the much larger issues that are more important to address in these times, and so willfully oblivious to the reality of the vast majority of people who would be shocked at its inclusion in an Encyclopedia that aims to be a major educational tool for everyone, including young children. Can you not see that such foolishness, makes you among the very best allies of the very worst fools that you rail against? You provide a legitimate-seeming excuse for all manner of the "nanny-minded" fools who would simply use this as an opportunity to to exclude or restrict access to ALL of the information in the Wikipedia, because a few short-sighted people insist on trying to include such images as this. The reaction of the many people and groups to which you give legal ammunition to not only to seek to ban Wikipedia from many places where they have influence, but even perhaps to prosecute it under such Pornography laws as DO exist. I oppose these laws, I consider them stupid, and at least as much an agency for evil as most of the excesses that they oppose...but they are very real, and very pervasive, and very dangerous to many people who do NOT have the convenient safeguard of internet anonymity, including the person who has been the provider of the Wikimedia servers, whose will and stated opposition you, who have benefited from his generosity, are deliberately snubbing. Delete this for the sake of the vast amount of truly important information that it would create a barrier to spreading, and for the sake of those most truly devoted to spreading it. ~ Achilles 19:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Delete this for the sake of the vast amount of truly important information that it would create a barrier to spreading.What a jolly good point! Let's delete *everything* that the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and North Korea wouldn't want us to have--otherwise we're creating a barrier to spreading our information! No? Thought not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Sir, your response implies that I am an absolute fool, and must either support such profoundly oppressive and repugnant nonsense as these regimes would like, or support such shallow minded, and rashly supported nonsense as you do. A point you evade addressing, or to which you seem oblivious, is the argument that anyone supporting the inclusion of this photo, far more than I, is an aid and ally to such repressive regimes, because they make it easy for them to ignore all that they truly most fear, and provide them an opportunity to merely focus their condemnations on that which most people, even in the relatively liberal societies that exist in the more developed nations would agree is not needed, and not desirable. I am arguing pragmatically, not ideologically, that even some of the most libertarian of people, such as I myself, can assert it to plainly be far more detrimental than advantageous to include this image in this project. I actually am not someone who agrees that the governmental suppressions of distributing such imagery is in any way proper, but I recognize the FACT that in most places I am in the extreme minority with such views, something you seem to be willing to disregard, or to which you remain entirely oblivious. The world situation being what it is, and is likely to remain for decades or generations to come, neither Wikipedia nor human society is well served by an insistence on including such imagery in this project, now, or any time soon.
          I am definitely no "prude" who believes that all discussion or exhibition of the erotic, the sexual, and the taboo should be entirely silenced or covered up. I strongly agree that the photographs that exist at Erection and at Clitoris DO have an arguable encyclopedic value, are arguably NOT pornographic, and even are arguably necessary, as an educational remedy of some of the more extremely oppressive anti-social conditions that exist in some places.
          The articles on "coitus", or normal acts of Sexual intercourse, as well as a few more unusual derivatives of these capacities which I have examined, have been edited to accommodate such standard practices as do exist on many of the most liberal of existing encyclopedias, and many other existing educational resources. This sometimes include line drawings, or famous paintings, but not photographs of the acts themselves. To say that there is an encyclopedic "need" for a photographic depiction of Autofellatio, and that the hosting of what I believe most legal jurisdictions would classify as "pornography" is an "encyclopedic" imperative is what I might politely refer to as "bunk", or "nonsense", or "sheer stupidity"; but to those who assert that they "don't believe in" even the self restraint of self-censorship, and its normal role in civil discourse, I will indulge my own personal impulses a bit in declaring it to plainly be a prime example of a HUYAA ("Head Up Your Ass Attitude"), or extreme Bullshit.
          To put it mildly I am "more than a little annoyed", that such short-sighted foolishness as manifest in those who say a project policy of such self-restraint, or self-censorship would be more detrimental or harmful than leaving the project open to such inclusions.
          If, in the future, the administrators of the Wikimedia Foundation decided it were a desirable goal to more fully accommodate the tastes of no doubt many people, and to support a project called "WikiPorn", or to have an explicit Porn section in their existing Wikimedia Commons project, I could entirely support inclusion of this photo in those projects, but not in this one. Name one encyclopedia that has a policy of including explicit photos of erotic or quasi-erotic acts within them, and I will name you an encyclopedia whose influence upon the world in general is very close to non-existent. To try to make that into an acceptable policy for this project is an attempt that could allow many factions , governmental or otherwise, who are eager to suppress much of the more important information that it contains to constrain its dissemination with far greater ease, and to quickly nullify many efforts that are being made in far more important areas of educational endeavor. ~ Achilles † 21:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          I would also like to strongly point out that I am NOT arguing against the existence of an article on the matter. I am arguing against the detrimental and "stealth" intrusion of widely objectionable material into this project, that like the already proscribed use objectionable user names could be abused by many to discredit the entire project. This relatively obscure topic would be the first, that I am aware of, where what seems to be primarily a few editors (many alerted by the notice of the issue on the talk page of that subject) have dominated a vote on including a photographic depiction of a rather unusual act of quasi-erotic self-stimulation, when in the previous day to the new posting, a similar, less accurate, and only slightly more objectionable photograph relating to the matter had overwhelmingly been defeated by a much larger body of voters in a ratio of slightly over 80% against its inclusion to slightly under 20%, for it. As others have pointed out, that photo was one about which even the rather admirably permissive Jimbo Wales had declared: "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline."
          I confess that I am not extremely familiar as to how extensive the discussion on voting matters have been here, but 80/20 was declared to be a "narrow" victory by some of the "most stringent" definitions of "consensus", but I would contend that on issues of anything that goes up for a vote as a project-wide editorial issue, anything with over a 2:1 ratio, decided by over two-thirds of qualified voters (perhaps defined as people who have been involved for over a couple months, and/or have more than fifty edits) is what I would think an adequate margin, for deciding on either an inclusion or removal of controversial material. If 80% were to be used as a general editorial standard for inclusion or exclusion of material in Wikipedia, it can seriously be doubted that even the overt promotion of some of the most virulently racist, fascist, neo-Nazi, nationalistic, authoritarian or otherwise bigoted propaganda could long be prevented. ~ Achilles † 21:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Achilles, it is quite unacceptable to spam talkpages the way you are doing, please stop! 88 people voted to delete the first autofellatio image: does this long message that you seem to be busy posting on their pages mean that you intend to spam all 88? Please refrain! --Bishonen|Talk 02:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Expression of my opinions, and an attempt to alert people to the reposting of such material as they had voted to delete is "unacceptable", but posting of what most would consider pornographic material, or the abject acceptance of it as if it were appropriate material for this project is?
Though you had voted to delete the previous image, I refrained from posting to your page because you specifically mentioned an antipathy to such efforts, and I respected that request. I have attempted to inform many other people about an issue that they have expressed definite opinions on, and provide them information that others would prefer they be kept entirely in the dark about, because they do not share their views nor desire to have them taken into account. I am sure that I do not share the views of many of them, and that they do not share many of mine. I am not "selling" anyone anything, and the only thing I am "advertising" is the fact that there is an effort by a relatively small number of people to contaminate this project with what I believe most people would consider objectionable and unsuitable photographs. Only those who know they are engaged in deceitful or generally unacceptable activity object to the spotlight of attention upon the truth of matters.~ Achilles † 06:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Achilles, you've been caught red-handed engaged in spamming as support for a single issue campaign. Please stop these false and malicious accusations that others are "engaged in deceitful or generally unacceptable activity." Only you are doing that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      I'd be interested to hear more about these laws which could be used to prosecute wikipedia. I'm aware of no such U.S. law – perhaps because minors could come to wikipedia and see it? We do have a rather comprehensive disclaimer, and Wikipedia isn't (or shouldn't, if we have any commitment to an un-bowdlerized encyclopedia) censored for minors. If a child unsupervised enough to come to the internet, look up wikipedia, look up autofellatio, and click on the link to this image, he might as well go to porn sites and look up much more pictures and movies.
      You bring up a point: why doesn't someone host this picture privately, and why isn't the google image search link sufficient? I think there are compelling reasons to have it on wikipedia, if we decide that linking to any such image in any way is appropriate for the article (which I think most who are actually involved in this discussion agree with). We can control the way it is presented - i.e. with no popups, spyware, and other nasty stuff that one can get by going to actual porn sites. That's why it baffled me that we replaced a link to a privately-hosted autofellatio jpg image with the google link. If you click on many of those links google gives you, there's no telling what kind of crap you'll get. It seems almost irresponsible to me for us to just direct the reader to the google search and be done with it, even though we know we're pointing them to the sneaky tricks that porn sites use.
      The google link notwithstanding, we can't even gaurantee that a privately-hosted picture we link to will be there tomorrow. It might even be another picture. Hosting the picture on wikipedia and linking to it from autofellatio, we can gaurantee quality, appropriateness, and context.
      The vandalism is a problem, but as I've said in my above comments, I think we can (or should) deal with that without deleting material from wikipedia outright. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Achilles, I'm glad you at least admit to being in favour of self-censorship. At least we can now have an honest debate. I am wholly against self-censorship but what I don't have a problem with is end-user self-censorship. You might like to take a look at a possible solution for this: meta:End-user image suppression. —Christiaan 21:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Use as vandalism is no reason to delete an image. (I know how this goes; the main image on my user page was deleted after a vandal started randomly slinging it around.) Double redirection should be fixed eventually, per bugs 850 and 1656.

      In the meantime, however, the damage dealt to the project by double-redirecting user talk pages -- not to mention random pages on less populated wikis, like tlh:quvwI'pu' tIQHa' yeSuwa' 'IHrIStoS lalDan -- is very real. Shortly before Autofellatio.jpg was deleted, Oven Fresh (I think) used some jiggery-pokery with CSS to move the image description over the image itself, with a link from there to the image. At least until the bug is fixed, it seems reasonable to reinstate this on the current image. —Korath (Talk) 20:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) Apparently, it's fixed now. Huzzah! —Korath (Talk) 07:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Voting Continues (2)
[edit]
    • Keep. No copyright problems, and a picture of a good looking man having about as much fun as a man can have without actually being on the inside of Kylie Minogue's knickers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 31

[edit]
    • Delete. Having wasted five hours today in undoing vandalism to cy.wikipedia when over 60 articles were moved and/or renamed and/or edited to point to this image, I have no tolerance for it whatsoever and would cheerfully suspend the vandal from a great height by a very thin wire wrapped round his testicles. This image is a vandal magnet, as are any other images containing the string "autofellatio" which I strongly believe should be deleted on sight. The drawing which is currently at the autofellatio article is perfectly adequate. It's all very well for you to adopt an ultraliberal policy on en:, but this is having serious consequences for smaller language wikipedias which do not have someone permanently watching recent changes. -- Arwel 00:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you will discover that the George W. Bush article is one of the, if not the most vandalized articles on the English language Wikipedia. Should we therefore delete that article because it is vandalized so often? As was mentioned above, should we delete the Adolf Hitler picture because it is frequently used by vandals to vandalize other people's User pages? Your argument that this photo should be deleted just because vandals use it is disingenuous. Tell us the real reason. RickK 23:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • What's so difficult to understand? I was, and still am, pissed off that I had to waste five hours of my life straightening out the mess that the vandal made on cy.wikipedia. Your example of George W. Bush is irrelevant. When there's a vandal attack on en: there are over 400 administrators available to fix it — on cy: there are 5, and some of us don't visit for weeks at a time. The damage was so bad that I nearly asked the developers to revert the database to the last dump, and I'm still not convinced that some articles weren't lost. It is highly irresponsible for en: to continue to host vandal magnets in this way - it seems to be an I'm alright, Jack attitude which doesn't give a damn for smaller language Wikipedias for whom fixing the damage is a much bigger task. -- Arwel 18:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, and while I'm here, I'll just clarify:- from discussion lower down it looks like many people are under the impression that the redirects only affect pages in the user: and user_talk: spaces. In the cy: example, 93% of the defacements were to articles in the main namespace. The fixing of the double-redirect bug stops the image from being displayed, but does NOT prevent the vandal from damaging the articles as he still does the renaming/redirects, and THAT is why I want this and all similar vandal magnets zapped. -- Arwel 18:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, for God's sake. Wikipedia is not a daring avant-gard "mind liberation" exercise. Do the high-volume, repeated, vandal attacks on newbies mean nothing to you people? The point of illustrating clitoris is that it's very difficult to get a good idea of what a clitoris looks like without seeing one. The concept of autofellatio is self-explanatory. The usefulness of this photo is nil; the damages the it has caused are massive. Slac speak up! 00:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dubious encyclopedic value, only use is to make a point by an absurd action, and its value that can be garnered by a simple description -- can't wait for an image depicting pedophilia or murder to come up next, such an image would be equally absurd as this one. --Wgfinley 01:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, an image depicting murder or genocide or the like would be completely unencyclopedic and offensive. Thank God we have none of those. LizardWizard 04:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • You're absolutely right, poignant photographs depicting historic events certainly are on the same level of an image from a porn site of someone orally gratifying himself. As I said before, the absurdity of the arguments for this are truly astounding. To even suggest these two things as somehow comparable is an insult to those who were slaughtered by Pol Pot and his regime. --Wgfinley 05:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep The image shows the possibility of the act in a way the drawing is unable. Is someone feels the image is too pornographic, then they can add a more clinical image, but since we do not have something better, and the image furthers the goal of the article to educate, we should keep it. Removing it due to vandalism would be pointless,as vandals could just upload another image. Removing it because it offends is imposing a point of view about what is offensive and what isn't. Gmaxwell 13:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This really is the wrong place for discussing this image. The image is not an orphan and the if's and how's of using it should be discussed at Talk:Autofellatio, not here. Thuresson 19:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mike H 20:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

April 1

[edit]
  • delete. The Autofellatio debate has long ceased to be about content, and is purely about some people proving they can upload porn to WP, and keep it here. how is this image copyright-problem-free? Because this time, the uploader admits from the beginning that it is in fact copyrighted? Thumbnail this image, both for reasons of fair use, and for taste (no, good taste is not the same as censorship. look at zoophilia for a brilliant example how such subjects can be treated tastefully). I don't want to sound homophobic, but this recent insistence on hosting gay porn on WP certainly starts to create a jarring effect dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    "I don't want to sound homophobic, but..."; "I don't advocate censorship, but..."; "I'm not against pornography, but..."; Exploding Boy 16:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    Um, most images on Wikipedia are copyrighted, including every single one licenced under GFDL or CC-by-SA, so what's your point? And I've long since stopped listening to the argument that a picture of autofellatio in an article about autofellatio is pornographic. —Christiaan 20:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic and GFDL-compatible. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, we must. It is by our tolerance for such patently "offensive", yet totally correct and apposite content that we are defined as free. Let us not revert to Bowdler, who thought to improve upon the Bard by editing out references to naughty bits. Besides, the image is truly educational. I was not sure it could be done at all, and a drawing would never have convinced me. — Xiongtalk 11:30, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Comment: As Korath said above, the double-redirect bug that the autofellatio vandal likes so much is now fixed! Check out my test at User:Limeheadnyc/Sandbox. I believe that means that unsuspecting editors won't get autofellatio disguised as new messages. TIMBO (T A L K) 18:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being used to vandalise user talk pages and it's unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a source of pornography. How many people are going to need a photograph of Autofellatio for purposes other than vandalism and personal pleasure? Hedley 18:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well now that the double-redirect bug is fixed, the User_talk page vandalism is much more manageable. Sure, the vandal could put the image inline on the talk page (rather than making it seem that the image is that talk page), but that's much, much less of a nuisance (and more easily corrected if it happens). TIMBO (T A L K) 21:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to vote on this one as, no doubt, even if it did get deleted, an Autofellatio3 (Revenge of the Cock?) would appear the next day. I'm not sure how many pictures of blokes sucking themselves off exist, but I'm sure we can't keep up with them on Images for Deletion. Apart from the mockery that makes of the whole process, it has made me look more closely at the process of voting. Now I understand that, in general, voting works fairly well and the ad-hoc mechanism is easy to use and cheap to administer. However, this vote highlights what I believe is a flaw in the system. Due to the ad-hoc nature of the voting and the lack of structure there are no decisions made (and recorded) with regard to the individual criteria for deletion. This means that if one factor changes (say for example the copy-vio issue) then the whole process starts again with debates on all of the criteria for deletion starting from scratch. I don't have a fool-proof way of resolving this issue but perhaps sub-dividing the votes (or at least the complex ones) into the separate criteria for deletion might bring more clarity to the debates and the decisions. I am sure that I am far from the first person to raise this, and that this probably isn't the best place to do so but I just wanted to mention it anyway. TigerShark 00:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think this illustrates much of a problem. The consensus was to delete the old autofellatio image for a number of reasons which are different from those involved in the new image. If there were a consensus to have no image at autofellatio, then any uploaded autofellatio pictures wouldn't make it to the article -- thus they could be deleted here as orphans with little controversy. From what I can tell from this vote and the inline/linking vote at the autofellatio talk page, the rough consensus is to have a photo linked from autofellatio. Seems fine to me. TIMBO (T A L K) 08:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Actually I think TigerShark's comment highlights the fact that most people opposing this image are doing so on grounds other than what they're arguing (mostly because they want to avoid any debate about self-censorship).—Christiaan 08:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Keep - but only if efforts are made towards making it impossible to use these images in vandalism. This image is much better (and IMHO less offensive) than the older one - also there are no copyright issues (speaking of which, could we have a copy of the "permission for use" in the images discussion?). I still think that the drawing would have been informative enough - I do however not oppose this image being displayed on Autofellatio as long as IT STAYS THERE. I know that Wikipedia is not censored for minors (although I do not entirely agree with this and do know a host of people who think the same) but again I repeat that it is totally unacceptable that anybody can be tricked into watching this picture without prior consent. IMHO this image should be deleted if a software-solution to the vandalism isn't found SOON. I weigh the harm vandals can do with this picture greater than the minor information it contains. I also think that User:Christiaan should have waited a couple of weeks until the vandals had grown tired of watching for an alternative until providing this legal image of the subject. grovel 11:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This picture is beautiful, not really sure it can be used for vandalism. The nannying, Christian Right school marms will not subvert this encyclopedia. --Mrfixter 14:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 5

[edit]
  • Delete, this image has been used to vandalize others wikis like Infosecpedia. Gbiten 13:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can we please please stop nominating these images for deletion? dbenbenn | talk 01:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote we rename it "Policy makers in the Bush White House acquiring reliable intelligence regarding Iraq"Gzuckier 18:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those images are permanently used to vandalize French Wikipedia, and when the precedent one was deleted, Autofellatio2 was immediately used to vandalize my user page. Maybe those images don't shock me, but I would prefer to be redirected to Pears.jpg... You cannot deny that this image is shocking for a large part of the people. If a WikiPorn is opened, no problem. Have a nice day, Pabix ܀. 21:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • After a bit of investigation, it seems that the vandalism of which you speak is now thwarted because of the bugfix. For example, the redirect on your French talkpage [1] as well as the vandalism on your English talkpage (three edits in succession, probably because they didn't work: [2], [3], and [4]) don't seem to be producing the desired result. I checked that the old versions weren't preventing the redirects by producing a vandal redirect in my sandbox. (Note that I originally showed that the double-redirects don't work anymore, but neither do the single redirects – see my sandbox history.) I'm inclined to believe that you just don't like the picture, rather than think it's a vandal magnet. It just isn't anymore. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      If you're sure that those redirections have been disabled, I'll vote for keeping it.
      I didn't know that because my user Talk was reverted by another user ; I just noticed the changes in the history, as I was surprised not to have any new message.
      Pabix ܀. 05:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      To clarify, after speaking with Pabix, I believe his vote is now changed to keep ([5], [6]).
  • If that redirect bug is indeed fixed, I hope it will be extended to all Wikis so that all smaller Wikis can benefit from it too. Arguably the image is informative as it shows better than a drawing how it's possible. On the other hand if the image is linked in the article, then why can't it be linked to externally to a site without banners and spyware? Jimbo rarely speaks out so clearly, and I tend to follow him on this one. Clinical images of sex organs are acceptable. Clear sex acts aren't. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 21:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I feel that this image is pornographic and has no real encyclopedic merit. -Unless, that is, Wiki wants to be an encyclopedia of porn. CiaraBeth 22:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    So you believe it's purpose in this article is to sexually arouse people? —Christiaan 23:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Clear that this is an attempt to change a 88-21 decision against the previous image, largely because it is was unsuitable for Wikipedia, unencyclopedic or a vandal magnet (only a minority because of its copyright status). This is essentially the same. Is anyone willing to notify everyone from the previous vote that this one is going on? --Audiovideo 22:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Since I voted differently on each image, I disagree with your assessment that it's an attempt to change anything. Demi T/C 17:26, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
    • I changed my vote from Keep to Delete on the other image solely because of the copyright issue. This issue is solved by this image, which has a different copyright status, and therefore your contention that the previous votes will be the same this time around is specious. RickK 23:38, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I find the insistence that a photo like this be used quite bizarre. 'Free speech' and 'not censored for minors' do not trump all the arguments about this being unnecessary to illustrate the article, a magnet for vandalism, and generally very damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. This is essentially a recreation of something previously deleted; doesn't that qualify it for speedy deletion? Worldtraveller 23:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose, since I voted differently for each image, my vote shouldn't have counted, then? Demi T/C 17:35, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with MgM Trampled 23:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 7

[edit]
  • Delete for the reasons I gave for the previous autofellatio image: I haven't really been involved in this before, although I'm aware of the history. I'm not a deletionist, and I am certainly not a prude. However, I don't believe images such as this are appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Deathphoenix 01:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably copyvio from a paying site. We have already had this debate, and it is pathetic to have it again. I personally don't want my hard disc illegally contaminated with this type of muck, --SqueakBox 01:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this sucker. - Nunh-huh 01:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this old man's wet dream. Hedley 01:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is Hedley's second vote on this image. Demi T/C 19:50, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Keep I voted do delete the first image because it was not illustrative: it didn't show the act very well. This does fine. It shows three things that are impossible with a drawing: 1) It's possible. 2) It's difficult and 3) It appears uncomfortable. No image is "needed" but this shows useful things a drawing cannot. Demi T/C 01:56, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
    • I knew those three points before I saw the image. (And the drawing illustration seems to contradict points 2 and 3, BTW). Gzuckier 18:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I have to ask - are you all pleading ignorance to justify your point? The drawing and the article were more than enough information for me. If it wasn't possible then it probably wouldn't have an article detailing it Trampled 02:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do you think I'm pleading ignorance? I'm pointing out three things that can be accomplished by showing with a photograph that can't be accomplished with a drawing. Demi T/C 17:35, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete – Image:Autofellatio 3.jpg, too. — Davenbelle 01:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) <-- Vote withdrawn. — Davenbelle 05:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — Davenbelle 05:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not as much detail as the previous one, but it looks cleaner and at least does not seem to be a copyvio. Sam Hocevar 02:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I voted to delete the last one, but this one is different. For one, the other one just wasn't ours to keep, and we knew (or should have known) its origin was questionable. On this one, we know who holds the copyright, and WP has been given permission to use it. That's a big issue. Secondly, this one has more educational value in that it better demonstrates the act while being less purient. So keep this one. Jonathunder 02:04, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. The reason "unencyclopedic vandal magnet" is enough for me. Another reason is that I'm sure that this image will be used for vandalism, and was already on the French Wikipedia (redirect to it from French user pages or user talk pages). And if anyone asks about my few edits with the present account (Hégésippe Cormier), may I say that there were many more contributions before, with two other accounts, which did not vote? Hégésippe Cormier 02:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. the article itself is not encyclopedic, at most this subject merits a dictionary reference, it is not as if it is an important social or cultural phenomena or has a body scientific or historical literature behind it. As an editor of wikipedia, I am also making an editorial decision that except in rare circumstances we don't need images such as this.--Silverback 03:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, again. More harm to WP than good, again (far too much energy has already been expended on this trivilaity). And, again, what Silverback said wrt an absence of scientific or historical literature to even warrant such great attention in the first place. El_C 04:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Silverback said it as well as I ever could. Fire Star 04:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, potential for vandalism, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. I fail to see how adding this image can be of any real encyclopaedic merit when it's overall value has the potential to damage WP. Megan1967 05:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Gamaliel 05:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete again. Causes more harm than good. Wikipedia is not a repository for gay porno. jni 06:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Or straight porno, for that matter. No need to fuel the accusations of homophobia that have sprung up in this debate. Firebug 21:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • "Wikipedia is not a repository for gay porno". Proves my point about the real motives behind this crusade. RickK 23:38, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a repository of pornography. Delete, a candidate for speedy deletion as reposted material. - Mike Rosoft 06:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Not reposted material. Different copyright. This needs to be discussed on its own merits and not on the merits of any other image. RickK 23:38, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. The only reasonable argument I've seen yet for keeping these is that they might prove it can be done, but digital photos don't prove anything. --iMb~Meow 07:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • One can assess the reasonableness of the act much better. In any case, in my vote below I pointed out two other reasons the photograph is superior to the drawing. Demi T/C 17:26, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
    • Delete vandal magnet. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete: UE. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Silverback, Mgm, Worldtraveller among others voiced my opinion eloquently. Besides, I can't understand why everyone keeps forgetting that there is a drawing by User:Rama that sufficiently illustrates the subject. To be honest, this looks like WP:POINT to me. — mark ✎ 07:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. We already have a perfectly suitable image to illustrate the article on this subject. We do not need additional images of the same thing. Average Earthman 08:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. violet/riga (t) 09:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. The fact that this image is used for vandalism isn't a good reason for deletion. The image does illustrate the subject, but, it is pornography. I don't have anything against pornography, but I don't think it should be used in an encyclopedia. Just like I would vote for the deletion of the image of an erected penis penetrating an anus even if it does illustrate the subject of sodomy, I vote for the deletion of this image. Nicnac25 09:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Cyberjunkie 09:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting Continues

Vote Packing Debate
[edit]
    • Vote packing
      I'd be interested to see opinions from people with a fresh point of view.--Duk 13:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see how a charge of "corruption" is valid. I certainly didn't make any money off of this vote, and while I'm not 100% sure, I'll wager User:Achilles hasn't either. There was a previous consensus established on a very similar issue, and that consensus was contacted. For myself, it would be perfectly acceptable for Tony or anyone to contact editors in good standing to establish another consensus. I don't consider my vote corrupt, and the burden of proof is on those who would allege otherwise. Fire Star 14:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • When I use the word "corrupt" I refer to the action of campaigning for a specific vote. What Achilles appears to have done is to compile a list of people who had voted on a different, but similar, image, remove the names of those who had voted in a way that suggested they were not useful to his campaign, and contacted *those people and only those people* whom he believed would perform in such a manner as to alter the vote on this page in a manner that he preferred. This is completely at odds with the use of surveys on Wikipedia. We don't do Westminster-style ballots, we only use surveys to try to work out whether Wikipedians think something should be done (in this case, delete an image). Achilles' action only had the effect of turning the survey into an enumeration biased somewhat towards those who, all things being equal, wanted to delete a picture of a man sucking his own penis. Actually determining the sense of Wikipedians in general from such a biased listing is somewhat harder than it would have been if he had not spammed, and we'd been looking at the votes of people who hadn't become part of some campaign but were simply interested enough to watch IFD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: I, for one, am glad that he contacted me, and it is at my discretion whether to vote on these things or not. If people can vote to keep or delete school-related articles because someone asked them to do so, I see nothing wrong with voting here as a result of being informed. Furthermore, I will feel insulted if my vote is somehow tainted or not worthy simply because someone brought it to my attention, because I was not forced to vote, nor am I simply a sheep who votes as other people dictate. I vote as I want, not as someone else tells me. --Deathphoenix 17:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I've taken MgM's suggestion and contacted the "keep" voters from the previous vote. I agree with Tony that vote packing's wrong, and I disliked doing it, but I don't see how fairness could be served any other way, now that the damage is done. I contacted Blankfaze, Carnildo, Madd4Max, 199, Mrfixter, Marc Mongenet, Improv, Nrbelex, Siren-Fr, brian0918, Scott Burley, Psychonaut and Flyers13. I made an effort to skip the "keep" voters who have already voted here. Demi T/C 19:45, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
        • Bad stuff. You know I think that. Look, the only reason this place works is that we respect one another. Canvasing for support is one thing, but targeted mailshots, please, let's not descend to those depths. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I got also a message from Achilles on my French Talk page, and I thank him to have given any information. Noone chose the way I voted or not. Using the words "vote packing" is stinking... Hégésippe Cormier 00:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It stinks because it's accurate. Achilles *only* spammed user talk pages of people who he thought would vote the way he wanted. That does not advance the purpose of the poll--to establish whether there is a consensus to delete. In fact it makes the vote tallier's job harder, because now he has to work out whether to discount the distorting effect of this attempt to pack the vote, and if so, to what extent. Not an easy job. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • For what it's worth, when this has happened in recent vfds, all votes were counted regardless of whether they'd been spammed or not. —Korath (Talk) 22:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • Re-reading Korath's post I see that it's far, far worse that I thought. Achilles didn't just spam the English Wikipedia, he went for eight or nine French Wikipedians too! Merde, this is activism on Wikipedia. It's the antithesis of consensus. This stinks really bad. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • While it's not something I would normally condone, I think Achilles was justified in publicising this elsewhere because it does affect other-language Wikipedias - it's not restricted to en:. See my replies to RickK's comment on 31 March. -- Arwel 22:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • I assume you're referring to the image redirect bug, which has now been fixed. As such, it no more affects any other wiki than every other part of the English wikipedia. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: I for one think "vote packaging" (as you call it) is perfectly ok. That's the way democracy works, you create lobbies for your cause. I did vote on the image before being contacted, but if I hadn't noticed it upto that point I'd been grateful to have been notified. The only really annoying thing was that Achilles did not countercheck who had already voted on the issue. Note that I changed my vote for this image. But really, the approach is perfectly valid and ok. grovel 11:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Voting Continues (3)
[edit]
    • Delete. No need to have this kind of explicit material. --Ascánder 10:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ditto Jimbo's comments for the first page. JuntungWu 11:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I am not a number 11:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete a deliberate shock image, which does not belong on Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Similarly any similar photogragh. --Henrygb 12:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What is shocking about it? It's just a very handsome chap with an unusual talent, clearly having a lot of fun. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Under other circumstances, I might have voted differently, but as close to the previous vote as this is, I feel a certain degree of disrespect shown for the sentiments expressed by the nay-voters. That said, this picture is a step in the right direction. BTW: Can the copyrigth notice get confirmed? /Tuomas 12:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Completely unnessescary, topic dos not need an illustration. Still can't beilieve this is even controversial. MechBrowman 12:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete for the same reasons as before. I appreciate Achilles letting me know about this vote. I don't appreciate this image being posted hours after the previous one was deleted with a significant majority stating that this type of image should not be on Wikipedia. --BM 13:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Does the permission granted to use this image require the current spam link, was the image use granted for advertising purposes by the copyright holder? Duk 13:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • DELETE. I cannot figure any good reason for keeping this image. I would like to keep Wikipedia available to everyone.--Jyril 14:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete. I have no objection to potentially offensive content on Wikipedia IF its value to the encyclopedia outweighs any controversy caused. That, however, is clearly NOT the case here. This image and its predecessor have wasted too much of our valuable Wikipedia editing time already. To the defenders of this image, I ask this simple question: Does the informational value of this image to the Wikipedia encyclopedia outweigh its downside as a magnet for trolling, incessant deletion debates, and otherwise wasting editor's time? I would think that the answer would be no, particularly considering that [ 1 ] Unlike some articles, it isn't a concept that's so complex that it can't be explained without an image, and [ 2 ] anybody who truly wants/needs an image can find it via a simple Google image search anyway. This is hardly some rare information that can only be found here. I propose a compromise: that the image be deleted, and a link to a Google image search be added to the article, so that anyone who reads the article and wants to see it in practice can do so with just one more click. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. What Silverback said. Jayjg (talk) 15:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Disgusting image, used for vandalism. Oleg Alexandrov 15:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Disgusting? Then I assume you will equally campaign to delete Image:OPI.jpg? RickK 23:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Bishonen|Talk 15:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Whatever the intent, and regardless of the aesthetic attraction or repulsion of the image, the image is harmful to Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - Thanks to Achilles for informing me of this vote. Vote Packing what a crock - the best thing for wikipedia is to have this vote known as widely as possible and for as many people in the community to vote as possible. I thought the issue was settled last time - if another image comes up for vote please inform me when it comes up for deletion. Trödel|talk 22:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If the user in question believed that "the best thing for wikipedia is to have this vote known as widely as possible and for as many people in the community to vote as possible", why did he *only* inform those who had voted delete for another, similar image? That's very dishonest behavior. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Everything one does here is seen by others. Even if he only informed those who he thought would vote delete - he can't guarantee that - as stated in this debate - some saw it on other's user pages they watchlisted - some he wrote to directly have voted keep. I am simply saying that whatever the poster's intent was - widely disseminating that this vote is taking place is good - and helps validate it either way. Trödel|talk 22:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    As I stated on the mailing list "Editorial control is what we do everyday in deciding what stays in or out." Lets use wise discretion in deciding how we are presented to the world. One can simply click any of the external links if one wants proof that it can be done (if the drawing is not enough). There is no need for this picture on Wikipedia. Trödel|talk 15:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I should like to register my objection to the increasingly homophobic slant this discussion is taking. The image has now been called "disgusting," has been compared to paedophilia, murder, and zoophilia, has been described as inherently offensive and pornographic, and as "an old man's wet dream. Several voters have also registered objections to having "gay porn on Wikipedia (I suppose everyone who masturbates is gay too, and I'm sure that no woman would find the image pleasing). Frankly, I'm disgusted by all of this. Im my opinion, the vote should be scrapped and restarted, with votes and comments restricted to applicable deletion policy. Exploding Boy 16:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not sure how my comment above is homophobic - would you care to elaborate Trödel|talk 18:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting Continues

Comparison to Charlotterossnypdblue.jpg
[edit]
      • Yes. Considering the support Image:Charlotterossnypdblue.jpg is getting--a picture which has no illustrative value at all, and appeals only to prurience--it's clear to me that homophobia is behind a great deal of these votes. Demi T/C 17:26, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
        • Lets be sure to Assume good faith even though I agree that it looks suspect - Trödel|talk 18:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for drawing my attention to Image:Charlotterossnypdblue.jpg below. It is just as unencyclopedic and needs to go. --Audiovideo 19:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I would have no particular objection to deleting Image:Charlotterossnypdblue.jpg. At the same time, I think it is absurd to compare a relatively tasteful image collage that was considered tame enough to show on U.S. broadcast TV to the autofellatio pic. Do you really think that a broadcaster could get away with showing autofellatio on national TV? I'm not saying that should be the criteria for inclusion, and I am not categorically opposed to seeing pictures of nudity - I would strongly object to removing Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg or Image:Clitoris-Vivero-Becker.jpg since they serve an important illustrative purpose and are clearly appropriate in an encyclopedia. But any encyclopedic value of the autofellatio image - minimal at best - is far outweighed by the image's use as a tool for vandalism and the damage that it does to the reputation of Wikipedia. Firebug 21:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • response to firebug et. al: I find it most revealing that you and others support keeping Image:Charlotterossnypdblue.jpg because of its supposedly "tasteful" nature. Exactly what is the difference between that image and this one (aside, of course, from the fact that that image is clearly designed to titillate and this one to illustrate)? Of course, it comes as no big surprise since that picture is of a buxom naked blonde woman, and of course anything that's buxom, naked and blonde is encyclopaedic and everyone wants to look at pictures of it. This is ridiculous. This entire vote is void and invalid, since most people haven't even followed the VFD guidelines for voting. Once and for all: the potential to warp the minds of young children is no basis for a "delete" vote. We need to scrap this and start again, and all voters should be required to indicate that they've read and agree to abide by the guidelines before voting. Exploding Boy 22:16, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't say that we should keep Image:Charlotterossnypdblue.jpg! If you want to delete that, go ahead. It's currently (AFAIK) only used on someone's user page anyway, not in an actual article. What I said was that this image is more jarring, especially when taken out of context, than the Charlotte Ross image collage. Furthermore, I am not aware of any instances of the image collage being used for vandalism. If it was in such use regularly, I would just as strongly support removing it. I'm glad the double-redirect bug is fixed, but any vandal can still inline the image on any page they want to. Of all images on Wikipedia, I think that this is the most jarring to the average user if taken out of context. I think it might not be a bad idea if we had a class of "restricted" images that could only be loaded from certain specific pages and would not display if linked from other parts of Wikipedia. That way, not only autofellatio vandalism but also vandalism using pictures like Image:Adolf.Hitler.jpg or Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg could be prevented, and those pictures would stay on the articles where they belong. I still think the autofellatio image would be marginal at best, but it wouldn't be as big an issue if it could be made to stay in its proper context. Firebug 07:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not certain if I'm included in the et al above, but I have not seen that image before and so am unaware of any debate that has happened about it. If it has no copyright problems and is encyclopædic (i.e. it is an apropriate illustration to an encyclopædic article) then I see no problem with it. I don't frequent IfD and was only aware of this vote when a talk page (not mine) that I have on my watchlist was spammed with the call to arms, and the ensuing debate at WP:AN/I. Be aware therefore that not everybody will be familiar with previous votes. Thryduulf 22:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Charlotterossnypdblue.jpg was deleted. Discussion is recorded at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Charlotterossnypdblue--Audiovideo 01:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Voting Continues (4)
[edit]
    • Keep.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep Eugene van der Pijll 17:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. This has nothing to do with the Christian Right or restrictions on freedom of speech, both of which I dislike in any case. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; our popularity is growing; we have underage kids coming here wanting to learn and contribute. (I certainly was one when I first came here and signed up!) This image is unencyclopedic, it is unnecessary, it brings not one iota of benefit, and it is completely, utterly detrimental to the public image and development of Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 17:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
      And thanks to Achilles for bringing this to the attention of the wider community. -- ran (talk) 17:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Tobyox 18:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is not a freedom of speech or censorship issue, it's about what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If we ever do reach Wikipedia 1.0, do you want every child in Africa having a book with this picture in it? Carbonite | Talk 18:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • What is wrong with children in Africa having a book with a picture such as this in it? Would you prefer them to have a picture of a man having his brains blown out? Thryduulf 18:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Not just pictures of people with their brains being blown out, but actual pedophilic images, such as the one with a very young child, bare-assed, holding a teddy bear that has a very large dildo attached. So these happy African kids will get the message: child abuse fine, having fun on your own, no way! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I would not insist upon showing anyone either sort of picture, but a fact that you seem oblivious to, is that there are many places in the third world, and the "developed" world, where some teacher or adult, oblivious to the fact that such often proscribed and often illegal images are contained in the project, could easily have his or her brains blown out for even inadvertently making such images available to children. This is of course no great concern to pampered poltroons far distant from such dangers, who feel safe in their comfortable social cliques or internet anonymity, and absurdly feel it to be an "encyclopedic imperative" to insist on including a photo of a man sucking his own prick. ~ Achilles † 20:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Could you ask you to tone down your rhetoric, please? Firstly you're implying that people who disagree with you are "pampered poltroons." Please remember that they're all fellow wikipedians and that you have no way of knowing of their personal circumstances. Secondly you put the term "encyclopedic imperative" in inverted commas as if someone other than you had used that phrase in this discussion. In fact you are the only person who has used that phrase--in a previous edit timed at 21:11 on the 4th. I personally don't see anything wrong with a picture of a man sucking his penis, there are no copyright problems, it clearly illustrates the article well and thus it's encyclopedic. Your attempts at arguing against the image always seem to devolve into extremely personal exercises in mischaracterizing the opposition. Please read the policies and guidelines again--your conduct is far beyond them at present. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I suppose we should delete this image, then delete autofellatio, then move on to the rest of wikipedia! Here, African children, have an Encyclopedia Bowdlerizedica. Your patronizing characterization of keep voters is laughable, BTW. We must all be deviant queers enamored with autofellatio, I guess. TIMBO (T A L K) 21:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Image:OPI.jpg RickK 23:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Caton 18:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • keep those involved with the article have stated that they see a need for the picture. I can see no harm in having this picture in an NPOV encyclopædia, we are not endorsing or denouncing any of the issues here, e.g. pornography, auto-fellatio, censorhsip, etc. and to be perfectly honest I would much rather children see images like this than images of murder. Thryduulf 18:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Kevin Rector 19:16, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry Christiaan.  :) — Helpful Dave 19:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Censure Achilles for spamming. - David Gerard 20:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously, unless there is a copyright problem. As it stands, the current tag isn't depricated, so that's fine. It doesn't qualify for any of the reasons listed in the policy (it's encyclopedic because there is an encyclopedia article on the very subject of the image; it doesn't matter whether there's a diagram already, there are plenty of articles that have diagrams and photos next to eachother to both illustrate and provide a real-life example). IFD is also not the place to resolve copyright problems. You post proven copyvio's here; you don't vote because you don't trust the word of the Wikipedian. You vote assuming that the current tag on the image is correct; it may become apparent that it is a copyvio, in which case you can switch your vote on the current or a later IFD, but you can't vote assuming something that hasn't been shown. --brian0918™ 20:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, pornographic, used for vandalism, just not something people need/want to see. KingTT 20:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • [[:Image:OPI.jpg}} RickK 23:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, User:Achilles tried to get me to vote to delete this by putting a note on my talk page. I have changed my opinion because there is no copyright problem with this picture. However, I strongly urge the developers to implement a restricted/banned images list and other technological anti-vandalism measures. Andrew pmk 20:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No encyclopedic value, the drawing is same informative without the shock value for the more prude readers (or children of course). andy 20:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's pretty amusing how children in Africa have become the excuse for self-censorship. And that's exactly what this is. The "unencyclopedic" argument is bunk unless you consider the entire autofellatio article unencyclopedic (in which case I remind the reader that even autocunnilingus, which I'm not sure is even possible [although I assume it is], has survived VfD). Autofellatio 2 is an encyclopedic photographic illustration (and a very informative one at that) without any copyright problems. So this is just about people thinking (or claiming to think) that little African children are going to have their worlds collapse if they see something we think they think will be offensive. By the same reasoning, we should take out the entire article, as well as Bowdlerize the rest of the encyclopedia. Is that really the best thing for wikipedia? And sheesh, all this fuss over a photo depicting its article's subject (no more, no less) which isn't even displayed inline (it's linked). AND the recent bugfix has fixed the sneaky vandal problems – see my sandbox for a demonstration (or lack thereof, fortnately). TIMBO (T A L K) 20:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I will repeat again: those who say an image of autofellatio has no encyclopaedic value are either idiots or don't know the meaning of "encyclopaedic value". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, in the business of presenting information. This image, be it lewd or offensive to some, IS information. Our aim here is to compile the sum of human knowledge. This image, be it lewd or offensive to some, IS part of that knowledge. I'm sure many people find the Jewish Holocaust or clitorises or robot fetishism offensive. Does that mean we should delete images of such things, or their articles? NO. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if there are no copyvio problems, then there is absolutely, positively, unequivocally no reason to object to this image, unless it's blatant or suconscious homophobia. And if this is deleted, I will immediately list Image:OPI.jpg for deletion and spam the Talk pages of everybody who voted Delete on this page to campaign for the deletion of that other image as well. RickK 23:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    ... this is going too far. You're accusing every person voting "delete" of being homophobic. -- ran (talk) 23:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    I agree. the name-calling should stop. Trödel|talk 02:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Also, the repeated mention of Image:OPI.jpg without any other comment after certain delete votes by User:RickK and now the listed deletion seems to be an effort to make a point. Please don't. Mgm|(talk) 11:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

April 8

[edit]
  • Keep, yet again. Flyers13 00:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • deleteGeni 00:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ugen64 01:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Berserk798 02:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep When will this end!? Nrbelex (talk) 03:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in the article, otherwise (ie out of encyclopedic context), detete. Marc Mongenet 05:02, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Keep in the article as currently indirectly linked, (Nrbelex, it will never end, "the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance" and all that). Drawings can always show the impossible so are not an alternative in this case. Do not make it directly part of a page ever. Consider stopping search engines from indexing it. BTW. I am not totally happy that I am forced, by those who fight so strongly for deletion of so much, to make this vote of support but there it is. Mozzerati 07:09, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Keep--now that copyrights are no longer an issue. Meelar (talk) 11:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • After much cogitation on reading arguments and tossing them around mentally, I've decided to reverse my initial position and call for (drum roll please) DELETE. Ideally, it would be kept, but 1) The information content of the picture is minimal, it's just decoration. There isn't anything in the picture that explains anything that anyone equipped for the procedure can't figure out for himself, so its 'encyclopedic value' is minimal. Nobody's going to read the article and say 'What? How?' and see the picture and say 'Oh, now I get it'. Aside from anything else, this makes it questionable if disk space and bandwidth are to be used to greatest advantage. 2) being an adult means being pragmatic rather than riding idealism down into failure to prove a point. 3) it would be advantageous to the long term development of Wikipedia to have schools, corporations and other such bodies NOT limit access to Wikipedia, NOT suspend pupils and fire employees for consulting Wikipedia, etc. 4) the main purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as a test case for freedom of expression (or we wouldn't be whacking each other with NPOV all the time), it's to provide a medium for the widest dissemination of information as possible; therefore, see points 1 and 3 re low information to cost ratio of this image. Cutting off our noses to spite our faces, etc. Gzuckier 17:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you should see the talk page on autofellatio if you want to discuss this... It makes the voting page less cluttered. I have already argued against many of your points on the talk page. Berserk798 19:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. "anyone equipped for the procedure"? Many of us are unequipped yet still curious. In fact, the "what? how?" you deride is exactly why I see this page as useful. A person who can't do this might very well think, "Is this possible? Just how large or flexible would a guy have to be?" A photograph demonstrates it much better than a drawing because a drawing may be distorted. People who are arguing against "porn" - please remember that one's definition of porn is very much POV. Finally, Wikipedia is not censored. Those who think it should be, please discuss it on the relevant policy page. FreplySpang (talk) 23:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a porn site. Samboy 21:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is getting to become disruptive. Neutralitytalk 21:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    I fail to see how it's disruptive, aside from the massive vote. The photo is behind a link in its article; the bug the vandal was using has now been fixed; copyright status is secure. Perhaps I'm missing something? TIMBO (T A L K) 22:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Everyking 00:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe when we have software features in place to restrict images to specific pages, and to stop interwiki direct image linking, then it could be re-uploaded without the risk of it being used as a tool of vandals. Until that point, however, it's too much of an attraction for vandals. The informative benefit of it is outweighed by these administrative considerations. Can this IfD be used as reason enough to delete any slightly different autofellatio photos uploaded in the future? - Mark 01:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep I do find that it illustrates the subject matter of the article very appropiately, although I must admit that by comparison, the drawing has a certain artistic value added to it.
The arguments against seem to revolve around one of the following:
  • Alleged copyvio: presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, no?
  • Pornographic: For the sake of argument let's assume it is, indeed, pornographic. From my point of view pornography in itself is a perfectly acceptable cultural manifestation. You are (obviously) free to disagree, but please keep in mind that others have a different set of values than yours. An exception where I would be willing to change the sense of my vote would be if a reasonable case can be made that the person in the image was not photographed performing the act entirely of his own free will.
  • Lack of encyclopaedic value: As already stated by someone else, in an article about autofellatio, a depiction of the act contributes to an immediate understanding of the subject at hand. Remember that proverb about a picture worth a thousand words?
  • Use in vandalism: This image is apparently being used for vandalistic purposes. Sentences, words, and letters have been used in the past for vandalistic purposes. Should we delete any articles containing any letters from the English alphabet, lest they be used in vandalism?
  • Children may see it: Again, I personally do not see any problems with that. As I child, I wasn't disturbed by depictions of sexual acts--I consider it a privilege that I had back then to be able to discuss anything at all openly with my parents and not be bound by fear, taboo, and ignorance, as unfortunately many other children were.
One last note: yes, I know I am posting from an IP. It is my choice not to have created an account (in any case, I am mostly a contributor to the Catalan Wikipedia) The reason for my contributing without using a handle is in part due to a belief that contributions should be valued by their inherent quality and not by who signs them.--80.58.43.44 02:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 9

[edit]
  • Delete I believe that the Charlotte Ross image was deleted on the grounds of "taste", and this image should be too. I don't buy the argument that it adds value by demonstrating the technique. The technique is that a guy bends as far forward as he can, how else is he going to do it?? I don't think the image shows any more than that, and I don't think we need an image to demonstrate what a man bending forwards looks like. TigerShark 10:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment No doubt you'd vote for deletion of a car illustration because it merely shows a box on four wheels. I cannot imagine why any encyclopedist would want to delete information on grounds of taste. I've got some serious taste problems with Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg but the main reason I would vote for its deletion is because it depicts child abuse as entertainment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I am not voting on the grounds of personal taste, but because we need to have consistency. My further comments were merely aimed at rebutting the counter argument that this adds value by showing the technique. I don't think that your car example is a good comparison as it shows an item rather than demonstrates a technique. But, to answer your comment, no I wouldn't vote to delete an image of a car because it merely showed a box on four wheels. However, if there were other reasons for deleting it then the fact that it illustrates an item (or in the case of the image in question a technique) would not automatically override those reasons but would have to be weighed against them. TigerShark 12:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I voted for the deletion of Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but this is a much better illustration. →mathx314(talk)(email) 18:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep afaics redirect to interwiki image has been disabled, the vandalism argument is no longer valid (or at least the part "it's difficult for newbies to revert"), the copyright one too, what's remain ? phe 19:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No informative or encyclopedic value whatsoever, given the already-present textual description and somewhat more tasteful drawing. Sole function is sexual arousal. Hard-core porn (no matter what the frea-speach kooks say, so don't bother). Utterly tasteless in this context. Vandalism magnet. Turns Wikipedia into an adult site that legally requires an age warning before entering. Without such a warning, reprehensible and psychologically harmful to all children and many adults. In any case, destroys Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. McDutchie 23:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you please explain your clearly false claim that a site containing a picture of autofellatio "legally requires an age warning before entering"? It's a blatant falsehood! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Please could you cite sources for your claim that this image (or pornography in general, as I'm not certain which you are referring to) is "psychologically harmful to all children and many adults". Thryduulf 08:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Why do we need this photo, when we already have no fewer than two illustrations already showing the very same thing? Chris 23:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do we need more than one picture of a human being? Absence of need is not a good reason for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I don't want to speak for Chris, but he didn't appear to vote against it on the basis of need (he just made a comment). The need for an image is probably the main counter argument against reasons for deletion, so it is fair to question whether that need is real. Can you put forward a real need for this image? TigerShark 12:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio
[edit]
  • I believe that this image is Copyvio, the disclaimer on the site it comes from [7], states:
    • "All materials presented on HornyBoy are copyright protected. Unauthorized reproduction, display, or distribution of this material, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal copyright laws and international copyright treaties."
    • It says nothing about authorisation being granted simply because the source is quoted (as is suggested on the image's page). Has any proof been put forward to suggest that this is not Copyvio? TigerShark 15:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image_talk:Autofellatio_2.jpg for response to this. —Christiaan 19:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other IfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/Autofellatio_2&oldid=1136091803"