Wikipedia

File talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Rossami
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. See synopsis at the bottom of the page. archiving the debate. Rossami (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

poll archive

edit
  • Image:Autofellatio.jpg — Moved from WP:VFD. All votes at and before 06:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) were from VFD TIMBO (T A L K) 06:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please Note: This image was listed here on February 12, and survived the ifd process. It was listed again in early March, and the vote was removed since it hadn't been a month since the last time it was voted on. It has now been over a month since this image was properly listed and voted on, so this vote (on IfD) is valid. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • On the French Wikipedia a mad person has tried many times to redirect several pages (including my User Talk on fr-wikipedia) to this image. That's no good publicity for Wikipedia, so remove please... - [[User:Pabix|Pabix ܀.]] 21:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not believe "vandalism" is a valid reason for image deletion - simply keep an eye on what links to it. It remains encyclopaedic and informative - there are many other images vandals may use if this is deleted --Oldak Quill 22:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no encyclopedic potential -- indeed, no redeeming value at all ➥the Epopt 21:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How is the image any more or less encyclopaedic than an image of a forest? It demonstrates a concept, and may be accessed by clicking the link. --Oldak Quill 22:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sinistro 21:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Has gone through IfD and survived, and strictly speaking should go back through there. Useful image, at least demonstrates that autofellatio is possible, and may have a use in that context. However, it is also abuseful, as the numerous incidences of vandalism involved using this image will demonstrate. The risk outweighs any benefit we can gain with this image. Chris 22:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you think we will achieve anything by allowing vandals to win in terms of content? We simply have to keep our eye on it and ensure nothing links to it that shouldn't be. --Oldak Quill 22:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This doesn't belong here; it belongs on IfD—where it has apparently already survived. If we start deleting images (or redirects, or templates) through VfD, then we encourage editors unhappy with RfD or TfD outcomes to 'forum shop' until they can get the answer that they want. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The following comment placed on a duplicate fo this vote, copied here. Chris 22:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This image is already listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Since images are inappropiate on VfD, and discussing this in multiple places at once is counterproductive, I suggest further comment be made there instead. —Korath (Talk) 22:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid listing. Not only should it be on the ifd page, but the vote there has already been held, and there was no consensus to delete. RickK 00:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid Listing. This image has graced IfD with it's presence perhaps 4 times in the last month or two, from overzalous deletionists and morally offended editors. As RickK observes, there was no consensus to delete. I remind everyone here that there are some explicit pictures at penis and many other places that might offend people in the improper context. What's more, a vandal can upload any picture to wikipedia, or even to any language of wikipedia and then do the old inter-inter-wiki linking trick. The image is not the problem - one stupid asshole vandalizing wikipedia is the problem. I suspect he or she is doing this exactly to elicit this response, since the picture alone did not garner the hysterically offended response that he or she assumed it would. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. sorry for the strong language, but it really irks me that the anti–offensive-image onslought persists. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.P.S. KEEP if we're actually going to be counting this listing. A plethora of accusations does not a copyvio make. Pertinent copyvio info should go to WP:CP. Otherwise, that's a bogus reason to delete. The image is very much encyclopedic, and were it not for its homosexual overtones I daresay it would not be facing such stiff (no pun intended) opposition. (Oh no! Autofellatio is on gay porn sites too? It must not be encyclopedic!) TIMBO (T A L K) 14:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand your frustration, having been irked when things come up for deletion repeatedly before. That said, it does seem from the votes so far that there's been a substantial change in the consensus, so this may not be inappropriate. Snowspinner 14:38, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT it doesn't look like Auto-Fellatio, looks like an auto-facial, as he's jerking off. 132.205.15.43 01:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Wrong Page'. Please list this on Images for Deletion instead. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely unnecessary Trampled 01:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you explain why you think it is unnecessary? It is illustrative and encyclopaedic. --Oldak Quill 22:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Chris. I have no objection to this image used in the appropriate article, but it is doing more harm than good on Wikipedia because of vandalism. If we could have a software change which prevents a suitably tagged image from appearing inline or being redirected to, then I'd change my vote, assuming no copyright violation. As far as the vandals using other images if this is deleted: pictures of genitalia out of context are less offensive than this is out of context.-gadfium 02:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's a matter of opinion, and the vandal could upload this picture again him/herself if (s)he wanted to use it again in vandalism. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, votes always are a matter of opinion. If reuploaded, the image could be deleted immediately upon detection. There are far more offensive images that vandals could upload, I'm sure (and occasionally they do). Most of the time, they use images already available.-gadfium 04:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Uh... couldn't a user still reupload it and vandalise with it if we vote to delete it? In fact, a user may upload any image of any "level of offensiveness" and vandalise with it. Do you have any more valid justification for your vote? --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. Megan1967 05:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I fail to understand how this is unnecessary... it is illustrative and encyclopaedic? --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 06:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I will transfer this talk to Images for Deletion. Sorry ! Pabix.
  • Delete – Only reason to have this is for shock value. – ClockworkSoul 06:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well... that and to illustrate the article "auto-fellatio". The fact that you find auto-fellatio and images of it "shocking" it does not mean that the images can ONLY be shocking. --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Tell that to two newcomers that I know of who have been driven off this site upon being greeted by this image. Perhaps you can lecture to them how encyclpedic it is, since you seem so keep on responding to every "delete" vote. If you can find them, tell them that they're prudish, and shouldn't be shocked by such a "clearly informative" image. Quill, this image is not entirely informative: what does it really convey that one cannot figure from the text, and the illustartion. It's not an especially complicated concept that the article expresses. The image is unnecessary, and simply not worth the trouble it causes. – ClockworkSoul 14:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If I were a 14-year old boy who had read something disturbing or titillating about autofellatio, and decided to check out this resource that claimed to be a free collection of all human knowledge, I would be glad to find a picture that made clear just what that disturbing reference was talking about, cuz sometimes one .jpg is worth a kilobyte of text. If I were accessing the site through the Internet (which, by definition, I would be), I wouldn't be surfing WikiPedia for long dong porn. There are many better sites for that. I ("I" BradGad (Talk) 06:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) the writer of this post; not the hypothetical "I" kid described so far) think that the people who would look up this article for the right reasons (and there are valid reasons) would benefit from this image. I think that the people who would look it up for the wrong reasons would go somewhere else. (I do realize that people like Public Librarians trying to impose filter rules are faced with special challenges, but I still stand by my position.) I think this image has a valid place on WikiPedia.
  • But would you like to see your talk page redirected to this image ? I think there is already a drawing on the page, this photo is unadequate on an encyclopedia where young people could go, and particularly when it is used mostly for vandalism. Pabix ܀. 10:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think anyone would, but not a valid reason to delete. Further, since when should "young people" not see sexual acts. If you have children and do not wish them to follow their curiosity monitor them while they are online - we, Wikipedia contributors, are not nannys. --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact, no one would probably want their talk page redirected to any image whatsoever. Sam Hocevar 22:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ick. No, I wouldn't, Pabix. Guess I didn't read/remember the whole narrative. BradGad (Talk) 14:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete already. if it snuck through vfd before, that was because the vote was not properly advertised. there is no reason to host this image, it is a vandal-magnet. Link to external porn sites from Autofellatio, for all I care. Add to that its "dubious" (to put it gently) copyright status to make for a very clear case. dab (ᛏ) 08:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not "properly advertised" has never been a reason to resubmit an article to VfD before - why should it be relevent now? --Oldak Quill 22:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The drawing does an adequate job, and if don't link to the picture on the page directly, we might as well put it under external links. There's copyright issues and I can't see any additional value the drawing doesn't have. Mgm|(talk) 09:19, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • An illustration is not the same as a photograph - further, "duplicate content" in items of media is not a valid reason for deletion. I concede that copyright concerns are valid. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exactly what Mgm said. Filiocht 09:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic image. Not presently used in any articles, except for vandalism. --BM 11:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It is presently linked to by the auto-fellatio article - the reason it is not included is due to an intervention by Jimbo. Vandalism is not a valid justification for deletion. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a vandal magnet. -- Arwel 13:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Vandalism has never been an accepted reason to delete before - we have not deleted images of clitoris or penis because of it. I believe these had higher levels of vandalism when in limelight anyway, which this picture currently is. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A porn magazine may need to show such things, but an encyclopedia can just describe them. It has been used to spam my user page. Wincoote 13:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Could one not similarly argue that images of forests are suitable for the "National Geographic" but not an encyclopedia which may just describe it? Do you not find it curious that many peoples pages are redirecting to it - indicating a single user or group of users being a purpetrator. We should not bow to vandals. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a repository of pornography. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a repository, but a repository is not one encyclopedic image. --Oldak Quill 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • How are sexual topics treated in other encyclopedias? Not using explicit images, I presume. I find this image - and others of a similar nature - inappropriate for Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 16:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this is removed the vandals will just substitute other sexually oriented pictures. I don't want mischievous kids to dictate what we can and cannot have on Wikipedia. The image is appropriate to the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - probable copyvio. Snowspinner 14:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 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. If the delete passes, I believe any recreations may qualify for a speedy delete as a recreation of deleted content. --Deathphoenix 14:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is this image not appropriate for an encyclopedia? It is demonstrating a valid sexual act, the fact that the act is marginal does not deem it "amoral", "unnatural" or "unsuitable" for wider public viewing. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg, our previous contender for "Wikipedia-hosted image most often used in vandalism", this is overtly and intentionally pornographic, is of little encyclopedic value, and very similar images can be linked externally. —Korath (Talk) 14:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • How is it "overtly and intentionally pornographic"? It is encyclopaedic in that it visually demonstrates a sexual act. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vandal magnet. Not used in any article. jni 14:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Vandal magnetism is not a valid justification for deletion - it has not been before (see penis and clitoris) and is only occuring due to the image being in the limelight. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Nunh-huh 16:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 16:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know there's a history here, but: this is almost unequivocally a copyvio. I refuse to believe there's still a debate about this. This is a recognizable gay porn actor, so unless he posted it himself (which is unlikely), it has to be scanned from a porno mag or copped from a website. Just because it's not actually the same image as the one somebody found on the splash page of an autofellatio porn site doesn't mean it's not copyvio -- for one thing, it's indisputably the same person. The fact is that one can upload absolutely anything and tag it as GFDL; calling it so doesn't automatically make it true. It's so overwhelmingly likely to be a copyvio that the burden of proof is on the "creator" to prove that it's not, not on anyone to prove that it is. Delete, delete, delete. Not because it's offensive, but because it has to be considered copyvio unless proven otherwise. Not vice versa. Bearcat 16:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I sat out the previous votes, but the recent vandal spree convinced me. - BanyanTree 16:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This vandal spree is due to the images position in the limelight - we should not concede content to a handful of vandals who circumvent policy. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Bearcat. grendel|khan 16:57, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just don't see the merit of including an image of suspect provenance which attracts vandals like flies when a drawing can provide all the explanation one might need without any of the offence one might take. If you say an image like this is necessary to illustrate the article, well, you might as well say a graphic photo of a murder victim is necessary to illustrate an article on murder. Worldtraveller 17:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is the photograph more offensive than the illustration? Murder is not the same as a sexual act? First of all murder is inconsentual and inclusion of photos infringes on the family's privacy. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As we do not have any source for it we should assume it is (a) doctored, (b) a copy-vio (c) porn (the face tells that). This is apparently a known porn star; by ignoring the obvious copyvio issues the reputation of wikipedia as being serious about removing copyvio's is being trashed; people will assume copyvio is unimportant. I think the auto-fellation people need to check this article is not doctored. I always thought such an act was impossible and this photo does not convince me otherwise (haven't read the article). This was dumpedc on my user page and now sits on my hard disc which may be illegal here in Honduras. I avoid ALL porn sites, not only for lack of interest but because I do not want images on my hard disc. now some psychopath has trashed this, and with a probable copyvio porn image already at wikipedia. I feel violated by this; like someone committing an unwanted sexual act against me. I really believe the pro lobby muxt both prove it is not copyvio and give some suggestions of how to stop the very serious vandalism that this image is creating. A very angry --SqueakBox 17:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This image is far more trouble than it's worth. In addition to shocking the vast majority of readers, it's almost certainly a copyvio. A less offensive image can provide the same amount of information in a more encyclopedic manner. Carbonite | Talk 17:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Illustrations are inherently less encyclopaedic than photographs - why do you assume it is "shocking" to the majority of readers and how is this "shock" significant enough to warrant deletion. Keep in mind that a user has to actively click a link to see it. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable copyvio. —Xezbeth 17:35, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. CryptoDerk 18:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with everything Bearcat and Carbonite said on this. Jonathunder 18:15, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Comment: The notion that this image is somehow unencyclopaedic is completely, utterly, indescriably ridiculous. IDIOTIC. The image is information and is QUITE appropriate for the article. That said I have concerns about its copyright status, so I'm obliged to vote to Delete. However, I'm very concerned about the rise of censorship here. I don't see a problem at ALL with having an image in Autofellatio, or even Goatse.cx. Our job here is to present information, be it explicit or nay. This image, while explicit and even offensive to some, is INFORMATION. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What about images of headless hostages, then, from ogrish.com and similar? Explicit, disturbing, but as appropriate and informative as this one. There is nothing to be gained by having an offensive (to many) image where a drawing will be every bit as encyclopaedic and far less offensive. Worldtraveller 18:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with such images. There is plenty to be gained. A drawing cannot be as informative. In this case, though, if a copyright-free image can't be found, a drawing will suffice. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree. Images depicting violence, or simple nudity, may be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Explicit images of nudity, sexuality or violence are - in my opinion - not. - Mike Rosoft 16:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • let me just say: [1]. if you consider this a deletionist attitude, I cannot help you. Every image is "information", that's a very trivial fact, and shouldn't prevent us from making a judgement. dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't say anything about deletionism; only that the notion that the image is somehow unencyclopaedic is wholly ridiculous. 20:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if it isn't a copyvio. Delete as copyvio. --Carnildo 18:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Bearcat and Carbonite said. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Duk 19:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious copyright violation unless proven otherwise (the idea that it isn't is truly wholly ridiculous) and really doesn't add anything ("So THAT'S how someone sucks his own dick! I'm glad that picture was able to show me!"). --Calton | Talk 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What an astonishingly stupid comparison. The knot illustration is to visually represent a physical configuration. And what "information" is added by the Autofelletio pic? Technique? Proper grip? --Calton | Talk 14:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There are no photos on List of sex positions or similar articles. This is unnecessary and horrid. I'm not even certain it's accurate...Smoddy (tgeck) 21:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not entirely aware of what you mean by "unnecessary and horrid" and how this is bad enough to warrent censorship? How is it not accurate? --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Unnecessary because of line drawing. Horrid because it is (OK, that's my POV, but still...). Possibly not accurate because I don't think anyone's body can get in that particular position. I'm not saying autofellatio is impossible, but I'm not certain its his penis... With copyright uncertain as well, I cannot justify keeping it. Sorry. Smoddy (tgeck) 22:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable copyvio. --cesarb 21:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please pretend I said something mildly amusing (that's all I got!). El_C 21:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not because it could be offensive, which is fine, but because it's a bad demonstration of the supposed "technique." Demi T/C 21:54, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
    • Surely it is better to have a photo than none at all? We may get a better photo of the technique eventually to replace it. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if it's a copyvio. Otherwise, keep until a better illustration can be found. Sam Hocevar 22:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pornography. You can't expect schools and so to start using Wikipedia with such vileness like this. Hedley 22:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Christian fundamentalist schools may block Wikipedia due to evolution articles - this does not mean we need remove them. Wikipedia MUST not be influenced, in terms of content, by external factors. We provide information and the user should decide what to do with it. Signficiantly, this image is not in the article but must be accessed by clicking a link. If a user has gone to the article they are giving consent by clicking. --Oldak Quill 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid listing and keep - it is imperative that we do not allow our values to interfere with content, this is completely unacceptable. The image is currently NOT inline, surely this is enough to satisfy the "save the children" lobby? --Oldak Quill 22:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The image plainly adds to the article more than a drawing. If you doubt that, read some of the votes above. There are suspicions that the image was digitally altered, and expressions of amazement that the act is possible. A drawing doesn't do anything to prove the feasibility of the act. I also don't buy the "it could be used in vandalism" for a second. Wikipedia is not vandalism-resistant because it's hard to vandalize it, it's vandalism-resistant because people remove vandalism as quickly as it is added. The only defensible grounds for deletion I see are its questionable copyright status. However, as it has not been demonstrated that the image is a copyright violation and the image would be hard to replace, I do not find that argument enough to deserve deletion. Since this has been demonstrated, it should be deleted.LizardWizard 23:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC) Edited LizardWizard 04:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Bishonen | Talk 00:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Likely a copyvio and is adversely affecting the encyclopedia. - SimonP 00:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Enough, already. How many times has this been listed on IFD now, anyway? dbenbenn | talk 04:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. mebbe this time it will go away. Davenbelle 04:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The repeated claims that this is a copyright violation are unsubstantied. If you believe it's a copyright violation, prove it, and list it on the copyright problems page. Until such a time, voting that this is a copyright violation is inappropriate, and the votes that it is a copyright violation should be discounted. What keeps me from using this precedent to demand that any and all articles be deleted because they're obvious copyright violations, if I don't have to prove it? All right, it's been proven to my satisfaction that this was a copyright violation. I will change my vote to delete. RickK 05:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • How about using some smidgen of common sense to judge whether something is or isn't a copyvio? User:N1ck, who only has 9 edits to three articles, just happened to create this image himself. An image, with a striking resemblance to this or this, turned up with a brief Google Image search? --Calton | Talk 14:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Message for Oldak Quill : You seem to forget this copyright problem. Furthermore pornography is completely illegal in some countries. Furthermore I think it completely discredits Wikipedia. When I saw that Wikipedia hosted porn images, I wondered seriously if I would contribute any more to a project like this. Does an encyclopaedia need an explicit photograph which can be totally illegal when the illustration can be largely sufficient? What is the encyclopedic goal of this image, why is it better than the schema? I would like to have a valid argument.
Furthermore, when you say that we must click to see the image, vandalism proves the contrary. I think this image has been deliberately uploaded to become a redirection arrival. You will say that it's not a reason. In this case, I ask for developers to block any redirections leading to an image as well as redirections leading to another Wikipedia.
Waiting for your answer, with regards.
Pabix ܀. 06:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I accept there is a copyright reason - and believe this is a valid reason to delete. What is not valid is allowing ones own views on what is "horrid" to delete - this is POV. What if the true biography of Kim Jung-Il is illegal in North Korea, should it be deleted? What if, in a dystopian future US, evolution was rendered illegal - should we delete these articles? Further, where does pornography become pornography - why is this intrinsically worse than a picture of an erect penis? Why does it "discredit Wikipedia"? If anything it shows that we consider NPOV an extremely important concept and do not allow prudish outlooks to influence our content. As I said, if it is a copyvio - delete it - but photographs are always far more informative and demonstrative than illustrations. What if someone "doubts the feasability" of this act? Yes, the image is currently being used to vandalise because it is in the limelight - so many users have it on their Contribution lists and it is in recent changes so often. The same occured when the penis and clitoris pictures were in the limelight - this soon died away. We should not bend to vandals and allow them to affect our content, this is imperative. --Oldak Quill 12:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • RickK has a point (post of 05:26). I came here to vote "delete", because I think that the disservice this picture does to Wikipedia is currently bigger than the benefit. However, after reading the votes here I must say there is a systemic bias towards unreflected delete votes. This is natural and understandable – most of the people who object to the picture will be very motivated to cast their vote here without bothering to read the discussion. This alone is a reason to support RickK's demand. On top of that, there are some people who do read the discussion on Image_talk:Autofellatio.jpg but still repeat the same, wrong arguments – such as "copyvio" (mostly reiterated by ClockworkSoul), stubbornly ignoring the counterarguments ("I would like to have a valid argument"). This sort of agitation makes me angry, and I feel it is my democratic duty to vote against it. I will think about it. — Sebastian 07:23, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
    • The guy in the image is a known porn star; I have actually received pictures of this very guy doing this very thing on gay e-porn lists. How is copyvio an invalid argument, exactly? Bearcat 07:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Can I answer? I went to the talk page, and there I noticed a vote of the User "SPUI" (keep). This is the name of the User who edited 15 user pages on the French Wikipedia. Can a developer check if the IP addresses are the same? And that's not the only user who did that. contributions of SPUI but another user named Cool Dood or something like that redirected our Main Page to this image twice before getting blocked.
  • Obviously, this is not an answer to my contribution. I assume it was a mistake. Whoever wrote this, please move it to the question you are answering (and sign it). Thanks! — Sebastian 17:48, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Then I really wonder if there are here some other people who vote in order to be able to vandalize more and more on the other Wikipedias. I hope not. But seeing SPUI having voted for keeping this image before and then vandalizing pages thanks to his vote (supposing it's the same user) makes me angry. You will easily understand that.
I don't want Wikipedia to be classified as a pornographic site and since then, reserved to major people. If this image is used as target for redirections, it is a danger.
No, I don't have many arguments. Copyvio and vandalism. But those who vote to keep this image don't have many arguments too. I make a summary :
  • It can have an encyclopedic potential (argument for keeping)
  • Vandalism is no reason for removing
  • Image has no licence and is probably illegal on this site
  • It's used as target for redirections
  • It gives many people a bad image of Wikipedia (go on our Village Pump Wikipédia:Le Bistro, if you speak French, some people, including sysops, are particularly angry with this image).
If you don't want this image to be removed, then I would like these redirections disabled by the wiki software.
Pabix ܀. 10:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We are not here to slander other users - if that user is a problem then prove it to the Arb Com. As long as he/she is an unblocked, innocent user they may vote where they wish. Wikipedia won't be classified as a pornographic site due to a handful of informative images which are used to demonstrate a concept. Again, this is allowing ones cultural values to interfere with content. Further, vandalism is only occuring due to its position in the limelight. I also agree that software development could overcome our disagreements - but we should not delete until that point. --Oldak Quill 12:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. From the list above, it looks like two major reasons that people are voting delete (apart from those who give no reason at all) are that 1) the image is probably copyvio and 2) they don't like the fact that someone is redirecting talk pages to it. For the first, this isn't the place to discuss it. If the question were its copyright status, this would be listed on WP:CP, but it isn't, so that really shouldn't be an issue here. For the second, its use in vandalism is no reason to delete an image — any image could be used in the same way, the issue is whether the image serves the article in which it is situated. If it weren't for Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point I'd suggest redirecting everyone's user pages to Image:Flower.jpg and see if we can't get that deleted as well. For all we know it's a user who wants the image deleted doing the vandalism for precisely this reason. That alone should be enough to explain why that can't be a valid reason to delete. The real question: Is the article better off with the image (linked)? I say yes, so vote keep. — Asbestos | Talk 09:22, 23 Mar 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.--Silverback 09:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is it not encyclopaedic? Why is it any less encyclopaedic than anyother sexological artictle—indeed, any other aticle at all. Further, I believe this image is on Commons? Where it may be accessed by the Wiktionaries - so I am not sure what you are trying to achieve. Even if it is rendered unencylopaedic it should still be there in that other projects have use for it. Further, we have never used "important social or cultural phenomena" as an inclusion criterion before. It is, of course, encyclopaedic - it demonstrates a concept. --Oldak Quill 12:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • In spite of your arguments, this article has received an overwhelming majority of votes for deletion. - Mike Rosoft 16:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This picture should be used to illustrate the article of the same name. (If it can be shown to be copyvio, then it should be removed under standard process.) Encyclopaedic knowledge is 'in context' for Wikipedia, and so it is appropriate for this image to be used. I find religion to be offensive, but sex not to be offensive. If this image is deleted, then would I be justified in asking for all religious iconography to be deleted? Noisy | Talk 10:46, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • no. that comment is misguided, we are not talking about concepts people may find offensive. nobody wants to delete the autofellatio article, or (almost nobody) the autofellatio drawing. It is the image itself that is offensive, as a porn pic, not the concept of autofellatio. Otherwise, we can start uploading goatse, and rotten.com imagery. If this image is kept, I will insist that goatse grace goatse.cx, and give up on WP for being a porn host run by trolls. dab (ᛏ)
      • I'm confused. I say the concept of sex isn't offensive, so I accept words and pictures relating to it. I don't find pornography offensive (or even readily definable). How then does your comment follow? The image is therefore offensive to your mind, but not to mine. You (in the impersonal sense, of course ;-) ) are now discriminating against me on the basis of standards that differ between us. I see Wikipedia as inclusive, whereas by your argument it excludes some communities. To the extent that it is inclusive, the limiting definition has to be the laws of the hosting location. If it is not inclusive (and thus embracing the "systemic bias" thingy that I've seen mentioned) then it has to make positive exclusions as part of editiorial policy. I (very personally) don't see how the aims of Wikipedia can be sustained using the consensus model, and think that in the end Jimbo will have to take on the formal role of Editor-in-Chief. Noisy | Talk 11:58, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • By 'the "systemic bias" thingy', do you mean my contribution of 07:23? I'm not sure I understrand what you mean by not embracing because not inclusive. — Sebastian 18:10, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Keep. The image is relevant to the article, useful in the article and provides a function that can't be achieved with a drawing (showing the action described is possible). The benifits out-weigh any harm. Wikipedia is not censored for kids. Madd4Max 11:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It doesn't show anything. A skeptical man can, after having seen this photo, still think it is impossible to do it, because we dont see the complete body. There can be two men. Pabix ܀. 11:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What nonsense - you can see his entire body, notice the angle at which the body (see the stomach) is bending. Where do you suppose another person would slot into this setup? I think it is quite clear that this is occuring, and that those saying it isn't are simply finding another reason to vote delete. I can, however, try and get another, more clear, photograph for you? --Oldak Quill 12:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't need it at all. Simply because my reading the article can be largely sufficient to have an opinion on the topic.
If you absolutely want to have a photo with this article, I suggest to put an external link targetting another image, with a message for minor people.
  • First, external links can lead to copyrighted staff.
  • Second, since there is no thumbnail for the moment, it would be the same kind of article.
  • Third, this image would no longer be a recurrent problem.
  • Fourth, redirections will not be possible.
Waiting for your answer. Pabix ܀. 21:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I didn't realize that I had to qualify my vote for avoiding it being discounted, is this part of IfD policy? Incidentally, I did read the discussion before voting. I do see and can appreciate the rationality behind Noisy's keep vote, but my position is that the image's cost far outweigh its benefits, and it isn't particularly important; there's no harm in being pragmatic on something which, content-wise, is that minor (and it isn't even remotely as notable as clitoris, so I refuse from the outset to entertain counterarguments along those lines). We're writing and editing an encyclopedia here, not conducting an experiment as to the limits of free speech. Especially for something that, to quote Silverback (whom I still disagree with, the topic is not unencyclopedic) is "not an important social or cultural phenomena or has a body scientific or historical literature behind it." So now I trust that my Delete vote counts. El_C 11:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Certainly, the auto-fellatio article can be given a simple artistic illustration image rather than a porn pic. The pic is nice to look at, but it should go. :) . — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 11:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has survived IFD before, and no new reasons have been given to delete it, except that now it has been used in vandalism, which is no reason at all. The image is useful in the context for which it uploaded. 199 11:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is encyclopedic. The prudish, nannying instinct of the Christian Right should not be the inspiration for deleting this image. The accusation that WP will become a porn host run by trolls because this image is not deleted is a laughably naive slippery slope argument. As a Jewish, homosexual, communist pornographer I suppose I would say that. --Mrfixter 11:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Generalizing those that do not agree with you accomplishes nothing. I, for example, am neither prudish, nor right-wing anything, nor possessed of an especially "nannying" instinct. – ClockworkSoul 14:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Nor am I. And I am certainly not among the "save the children" crowd as listed below. I like how people, as part of their defense, like to paint all of us who voted Delete with one brush. --Deathphoenix 17:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah right. It's just a man sucking his own dick. It's your problem if you are shocked by a beautiful picture of a man sucking his own beautiful dick. Don't punish WP for trying to be an encyclopedia. If you don't like it, don't look! Amazing how much time people will waste trying to delete a picture of a man sucking his own dick. They can't think about anything else! Autofellatio really does waste a lot of time, and not just for the people who can do it! --Mrfixter 18:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, vandalism must be solved with technical means. Prude people must solve their problems themselves. Marc Mongenet 12:21, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hégésippe Cormier 13:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • deleteGeni 13:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales: "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline." That is the edit summary that Jimbo wrote when he removed the image from Autofellatio article. What part of that is difficult to understand? --BM 13:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not the whole story. Jimbo has expressed his distaste for the picture, but he did not delete the picture himself nor tell anyone else to do so. His actions favored linking the image from autofellatio because of a growing majority favoring that. TIMBO (T A L K) 14:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Completely unacceptable for Wikipedia" cannot be dismissed as mere "distaste". Jimbo is leaving it to consensus to remove the image; but he has made it clear quite clear what his opinion is regarding whether it belongs on Wikipedia. He did not vote for 'linking': he simply removed the image from the article entirely pending the outcome of that vote. Somebody else subsequently inserted a link to the image in the article. --BM 15:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Correct – it cannot be dismissed as mere "distaste". OTOH, that doesn't mean that one can or should not, in a democratic vote, disagree with him. — Sebastian 18:10, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • I don't think characterizing Jimbo's comment as distaste is dismissive at all. I think it's misleading to say that Jimbo wants it gone, so it should be gone. If Jimbo wanted it gone, he could delete it himself. This is his site; he has that power. He hasn't. I don't know how many times people have tried to justify outright deletion of offensive material with the autofellatio precedent. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia shouldn't be a testbed for "Freedom of Speech" issues (which is what contributors to this discussion seem to be addressing). From an encyclodeic point of view I don't consider that such a graphic image is necessary, a textual description and maybe the drawing should be enough (how else is it going to be done!). Even taking Freedom of Speech into account, that right needs to be balanced against potential harm. It doesn't offend me personally, but my main concern with regard to potential harm is the effect on children viewing this image (this possible harm is debatable, but is the risk worth taking for very little benefit). Also, is a parent going to restrict their children from viewing Wikipedia is they realise such content is available. The aim of Wikipedia is to provide access to all. For an academic defence of "Freedom of Speech", we jeopardise that real goal and risk harming others. TigerShark 13:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Caton 14:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --SPUI (talk) 16:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Doesn't meet (my personal) standards for suitable illustrations. The costs and risks outweights the gains and advantages with this picture. Not every photography of self-sucking would necessarily be unfit for Wikipedia, but we better be sure that it's a photographer and a model who agrees to the publication (on Wikipedia's terms), and it better doesn't look too much like a picture taken with the intent to get published in a pornographic magazine. --Johan Magnus 16:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The move to be 'family friendly' is not a good thing for something that aims to cover well everything encyclopedic. Life is sometimes offensive, and we can let people install their blinders on their eyes if they don't want to see parts of it. If it can be established definitively that this is a copyvio, I will of course change my mind, but I suspect that this is mainly out of the "save the children" crowd, and think that's rarely anything more than an excuse for disgusting prudishness. --Improv 16:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
such images always find a lot of people to protect them... This is not more weird than prudishness ! But do you have kids ? I guess not.
    • Comment It should be quite possible to document everything encyclopedic without having to show images that could cause harm. I don't see anybody stating that the autofellatio article should be deleted, the question is whether this image is required. Maybe we shouldn't dismiss anybody who raises the real issue of potential harm as just being part of the "save the children crowd" (whatever that means!) TigerShark 17:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rather poor taste. The drawing is just as much explicite and informative and of better taste. Anthere 17:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nataraja 17:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Weft 18:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nicnac25 18:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Should we delete Abu Ghraib or Auschwitz pictures because some people find them offensive and shocking? These images all add something to the articles they are included in. They describe something without which an encyclopedia would be unable to fully convey the ideas in the article to the reader. Nrbelex (talk) 20:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Godwin was right ! Pabix ܀. 19:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Because it is not the current opinion now but it will be the one of the future. Siren-Fr 20:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This vote is extremely close. Right at 80%, more or less, depending on how the votes are counted. It is not yet clear whether there is consensus to delete or not. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Where is it stated that "consensus" is 80%? On other pages dealing with deletion, such as VfD, there is no fixed standard, and in theory any administrator who processes the vote decides. However, the normal practice is to consider 2/3 to be consensus. What is the rationale for giving such a strong presumption that an image should be kept that every "keep" counts for 4 "delete" votes? --BM
    • Consensus is, in fact, determined by many factors, and there is no fixed standard. However, I still say it's not clear whether there's a consensus to delete or not. 80% is often used as a rule of thumb. Wikipedia:Consensus says "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a four-fifths majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority." – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:40, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Consensus is not policy, and, in fact, it is wrong about the degree of consensus required to delete an article through VFD. The norm is 66% (2/3). Why should a higher level of consensus be required to delete an image than to delete an article? In any case, I don't suppose you are asserting that it is YOU who decides what is consensus on IFD. Or, are you? --BM 21:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Dude. . . why so hostile? I've been the one who's decided on 99% of the images up for vote here in the past several months - mostly because I'm the only one who's wanted to do the work. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I was under the

impression that the official policy (on votes like this) is for a brave or masochistic admin to wade through the votes and determine consensus at his/her discretion using a number of factors and the consensus page as a guideline. Afterwards, the voters start flame wars on talk and user pages until they get tired of it. ... I could be wrong. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

        • Heh - it's not official policy, but we here at Wikipedia have a long and proud tradition of "vote and rant". – ClockworkSoul 23:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, I voted keep above (in the original VfD section), but if we're not counting those I vote Keep. And if this image does get deleted, what would stop someone from vandalizing with another image that he/she doesn't like until it gets deleted by raving editors whose exposure to this picture was not seeing it linked from the autofellatio article but out of context? TIMBO (T A L K) 23:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jean-no 00:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) ... I can watch such images (it is even funny), I'm not shocked. But I would not be very happy to hear that kids found that on wikipedia... The WWW is full of images of all sorts, this one doesn't bring anything interesting to wkpd.
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, likely copyvio, used for vandalism. In response to those who suggested "the vandals would win" if we deleted the image, I would much rather have a single article slightly worse off than have people turned off Wikipedia because someone put porn on their talk page. JYolkowski 00:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hardly necessary to clarify the article (just about any human should be able to figure it out from the text) and therefore unnecessarily controversial. CoyneT 00:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless copyright status is questionable. -- BRIAN0918  01:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Copywrite status is very questionable, as the model is a well known porn actor.
  • Delete! It's a nice picture to look at, but we do not need pornographic pictures where we can do without, and I am sure this is an example of that. ...and, looking at this long discussion, including the image's talk page, I don't find where it's stated whether the dude has OK'ed to be published in Wikipedia, or not. /Tuomas 07:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes it's offensive. Real life is offensive. It is not up to us to hide or alter that fact. If it's a copyvio it should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 07:40, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE : 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. There is no actual need of a picture of a man literally licking his own dick here, and IMHO those who disagree figuratively have their heads firmly up their own asses. ~ Achilles 16:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Every image of a sexual act cannot be automatically considered pornographic. Even those that were originally intended as such may not be so when removed from particular contexts. As I see it, the majority of objectors' problem with this image is its supposedly pornographic nature. I remind those people that any image of an erect adult penis is considered pornographic in some jurisdictions, yet Wikipedia contains just such an image. A drawing or illustration would not do that article justice, just as the drawing in the autofellatio article clearly is insufficient, judging by the voters here who have stated that they still believe autofellatio to be impossible. I think it's reasonable to have the image as a link rather than in the article on the off chance that someone who would be deeply shocked simply stumbles across it, but I don't think it's reasonable to remove the image totally. As for the claims that the image is inherently shocking, it's not reasonable to make such a claim at all. I'm not shocked by it, nor are many of the other users here, nor are most of the people I know. Any image is potentially shocking; that's not sufficient reason to remove them from Wikipedia, just as potentially shocking or even offensive content is not enough to remove an article. To those who are attempting to equate images of sexuality with those of violence I say that the two are not equivalent despite how many cultures represent them in that way. Indeed, in America parents seem quite happy to have their children watch graphic representations of sexualised violence, torture and murder but are shocked by the tamest expression of human sexuality (Janet Jackson's breast, anyone?). Images of humans engaging in sexual activity are common in encyclopaedias, medical texts, kids books, and even on TV. They belong on a website dedicated to human knowledge. As to whether this particular image is a copyvio, that has yet to be proved, making that argument irrelevant. And personally, I'm rather fond of it. Exploding Boy 18:32, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Answer. If you spoke of me when saying judging by the voters here who have stated that they still believe autofellatio to be impossible, which I believe, you would better read once more what I wrote here. I said that a skeptical man may keep skeptical even if he looks at the photo.
I'm not saying that it's not possible, there are very talentuous contorsionists. I don't need this photo to be convinced that what the article says is right or wrong.
Pabix ܀. 21:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment to Exploding Boy: If you like the image, and are not worried that it might be a copyvio or far too potentially dangerous a snubbing of existing laws and prohibitions, by all means download it, post it on your own site somewhere as an example of fabulously appealing art— even link to it from your user page— but don't ask that this entire project be burdened with catering to your individual tastes to the complete lack of consideration for those of nearly everyone else. It opens up opportunities for every close minded nitwit to characterize the entire set of projects as damnable by association, because of the insistence of a few people who are so dense that they can't seem to admit that anyone else should have any reason to be offended at all. There are many far more important freedoms to be fought for than that of the presently absurd one of having an image of someone performing autofellatio considered normal and standard fare for an encyclopedia. That world is not the world that exists.
      As I stated, I am against most forms of censorship imposed upon people and groups, and am no supporter of authoritarianism, but an individual or a group's prudent self censorship is nearly always a necessary portion of true wisdom. Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness. (George Washington). In most things I am quite libertarian, but it is within my liberty to join with most people here in declaring that the idea of posting of this image within the Wikimedia projects is entirely unnecessary, extremely detrimental, and nearly incredibly STUPID. ~ Achilles 21:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is possible to have a discussion without resorting to calling people names, isn't it? At any rate, I suggest you try, since this discussion is convoluted enough as it is, without having it disintegrating into a SHOUTING match. As my post indicates, my personal opinion of the photo is not the basis for my vote to keep. The arguments that are being used here are essentially the same arguments that are used elsewhere on Wikipedia to justify attempts to remove articles on certain topics as well, most often those concerning sexuality, and they are flawed. My vote is to keep because images of human sexuality cannot be considered automatically offensive, and because they can be useful and can improve articles. This image is not even displayed in the article, but merely linked to it. If we are removing this image, then we should be removing any image that can be remotely construed as sexual, along with all related articles. After all, we don't want to offend anyone. Exploding Boy 00:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
We don't want to be hijacked by a crowd that aims at using Wikipedia as a vehicle for their own political campaign — particularly not if the means are offensive to quite a few of the readers we wish to reach. If other pornographic pictures are swept away as a secondary consequence of this debate, then what's wrong with that? It ought to be stated that Wikipedia is not (and nor Wikimedia) a repository of pornography. /Tuomas 13:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg stays, this one is over the line. I saw a stylized drawing somewhere, which was much better. Thue | talk 22:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep, not a copy vio. Agree with RickK that this is an invalid listing (no consensus 4 times already). Go push your moralist propaganda elsewhere. The only thing horrid is the precedent that would be set by the removal of this image. —RaD Man (talk) 22:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The guy in the image is a known porn star; I have actually received pictures of this very guy doing this very thing on gay e-porn lists. How is it not a copyvio, exactly? Bearcat 07:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete just get rid of this piece of crap, its going to be a constant topic of debate, no one will ever win. As it stands its just a freaking drain on our time when we could be working on other articles.  ALKIVAR™ 22:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Clitoris has been a constant topic of debate too. I suppose we should just give up, delete it, and start working on a sufficiently neutered wikipedia. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm voting primarily to be consistent with what I believe Jimbo Wales has expressed on this topic, that it ought to be removed. I also object to this particular image as unencyclopedic, but remain open to the possibility that not all such pictures must necessaily be thus. Let's cross that road if and when we come to it however. Delete this one.
  • Delete. JuntungWu 08:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech, nor an experiment in the limits of good taste. Kosebamse 12:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Photo describes the unusual act described in the article; I think many people would be glad to see it illustrated, as it's difficult to imagine. Psychonaut 13:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if it isn't a copyvio. Delete I emailed Rob of wowboy.com (Rude Media, Inc.) at webmaster@wowboy.com and he said they don't hold the copyright but have a licence for the picture; he can't remember who from and said it would take hours to dig through his files to find out who (as it's an old image), he said maybe Ounique.com. In any case if Rude Media, Inc. have licenced it then it's extremely likely to be copyvio. —Christiaan 01:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentThe amount of times we are having to go through this process is becoming a real problem. Unfortunately there is probably not much to be done about it because of problems of systemic bias. I've helped outlined a scheme on Wikimedia for End-user image suppression to try and deal with this problem. —Christiaan 14:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alvaro from Caen 17:40, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Delete phe 18:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very likely copyvio. Used solely for Vandalism. A drawing (already existing) will serve the point of the article. This image has scared too many new wikipedians and visitors away. I don't consider it informative at all (unlike the penis and vagina images too often mentioned in this article). grovel 19:02, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a much more appropriate drawing. — mark ✎ 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No comment. I am not a number 22:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Changed my vote from Keep due to the enormous impact of the autofellatio vandal. Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy as the autofellatio vandal wishes. Not only was my user page hit by this vandal, but this is a copyvio with a KNOWN source. Andrew pmk 01:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Glad to finally see a large number of participants in this vote. Trödel|talk 04:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The image (which I encountered on my talk page) is almost certainly copyright, overlarge and, most importantly, redundant. It is also taken in a gratuitous fashion rather than a more scientific bent. If it is possible to prevent an image from being linked without an admin's say so then it should be done. Average Earthman 20:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seeing is believing:) And, I would be more worried about the 'poor children' seeing pictures like [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], all of which are inline on their respective articles. And we've got this image inline on the relevant page. Tobyox 23:33, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete in light of Quadell Apollomelos 01:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: This image is found on [12], a porn pay site, with the notice "© WowBoy 2001-2004, All rights reserved". You may want to review your vote in light of this find. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:16, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I contacted webmaster@wowboy.com and Rob of RudeBox Media, Inc. replied to say that they were not the copyright holder of this image and that they only licenced it. Better yet he offered to provide a picture of autofellatio for us to use in place. I'm waiting for him to respond with possibilities. Very fruitful indeed. —Christiaan 22:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio, in light of Quadell's note above. -- Curps 03:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline." -JW. I quite agree. Fire Star 04:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Note As of 18:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC), the image now shows some text about it being used for vandalism. I'm not sure how to deal with this technically, so if someone who both wants it back and knows how to put it back could do so. Chris 18:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being completely inappropriate for Wikipedia is a reason good enough. --Jyril 18:39, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no way should we allow this new form of goatse on Wikipedia. Some vandals are still redirecting user's talkpages on this image. (See WP:VIP) - Mailer Diablo 19:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio. Linking from fake "You've got new messages" notices is unlikely to qualify as fair use Pwqn 19:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, This shouldn't even be a debate. This kind of image is inappropriate in any public situation MechBrowman 19:24, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Inappropriate image for Wikipedia --Ascánder 00:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a shock image, as shown by its repeated use by vandals and trolls, which does not belong on Wikipedia. --Henrygb 00:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, UE, copyvio, Thuresson 00:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, drawing is all that is needed. Wikipedia is not porn. And it's a vandal-magnet to boot. ··gracefool |☺ 01:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If a copyvio, delete this vote and move the (new) discussion there. Flyers13 04:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The image is not informative - the description speaks for itself. A drawing can easily substitute. It's a likely copyvio. And, unlike, penis, or clitoris, whose inclusion is clearly and self-evidently justified, adding the image diminishes Wikipedia in popular esteem. Slac speak up! 10:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

vote count

edit

I'm counting

  • delete: 87
  • keep: 23

(i.e. 79% for deletion), but I didn't check for double votes or sockpuppets, so somebody may want to verify this. The reasonings for delete votes are spread between UE and copyvio, and it seems the image would get a majority , but no clear consensus to delete merely on grounds of being porn/unencyclopedic. User:Christiaan's enquiry seem to show clearly that the image is copyrighted, and based on this, together with the numerical consensus (79%), I would recommend deletion (but I won't do it myself, since I have "campaigned" to have the image deleted. And frankly, the lesson I take from this is that anything will get 20% support on WP (if that wasn't clear from GNAA already) dab (ᛏ) 09:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: the image is now listed for deletion on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Duk 17:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The poll is now over. The details of the vote can be seen in this page's history.

Results of the poll: There were 109 people voting. 88 of them voted to delete the image, and 21 people voted to keep it. Five of these users (three voting to delete, two voting to keep) had made fewer than 20 edits before voting in this poll, and those votes were not included in the calculations. That leads to a result of 81.73% voting to delete. If the new users' votes had been counted, the percentage would have been 80.73%. Either way, this counts as a clear (if close) consensus to delete, even under the strictest definitions. Therefore I have deleted the image according to this consensus. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March_22_IfD&oldid=1109809384"