Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whoa! Are pictures like this allowed on Wikipedia, even with a warning? (Though now I know you don't need to put your ankles behind your head to do that... err...) - Furrykef 05:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need this. Does it really add anything to our knowledge of the subject? DJ Clayworth 05:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Images and media for deletion vote 2 New (Feb 2005) Comments 3 Jimbo doesn't want this image. Zap time. 4 Drawing 5 Usage in Vandalism 6 copyvio 7 Why am I receiving this page from "you got new messages"? 8 Vandalism 9 ceterum censeo thing 10 What are you thinking about? 11 March 22 poll 12 Fraudulent link 13 Delete on the grounds of duplication 14 Emergency Change 15 TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

[edit] Images and media for deletion vote

Note: the following vote was cast on this talk page well after the IfD vote completed. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Trödel|talk 23:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New (Feb 2005) Comments

An 11-10 vote Keep vs Delete is being cited as reason to keep this image - that is not realistic - this image is of sufficient importance that a vote of so few editors is really not indicitive of the community (over 100 votes are on the image vs inline vote - that is more likely to reflect a concensus) . Trödel|talk 00:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually IfD votes are usually much, much smaller than that. Even VfD often does not get a lot of votes. In any case the prescribed procedure was followed and no consensus to delete was reached, so the picture was kept. If you think the policy is wrong, propose a change in the appropriate forum. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that in most cases votes of this nature are easily made and the concesensus is quickly reached 5-0 on VfD to delete or to keep, etc quickly show concensus and I don't bother to read the article and make an informed decision on whether I should vote and what that vote should be - just not enough time in the day. However, on a vote as close as this - and on an issue on which it is obvious there would be strong feelings both way - a longer vote time and more visibility would be wise in future situations.

I am a little calmed down on this issue today so I am going to think about this some more before I take a final position. I must say, however, that the intransigence of some on the inline compromise vs pushing the "everyone must see everything" POV has motivated me to be a more vigilant.

Wouldn't the talk page be the proper forum to start discussing whether the IfD vote should be reconsidered? I really am still pretty new and sometimes the formal and informal processes are difficult to navigate. Trödel|talk 14:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Additionaly, IMHO, one of wikipedia's great strenghts (and a potental source of weakness) is that decisions are very much decentralized (those that care about a topic know and vote on it due to the watch pages etc.) They are then quoted as precedent and, whether the logic was good or bad, is quickly revealed as it becomes more widely discussed. Weakness comes because those that are using the encyclopedia (or editing on a more sporadic basis) rarely vote or particpate on matters on which we really should have their input. What is the proper forum for bringing an issue that has potentially far reaching effects to a larger audience? The mailing list? Meta? Wikimediafoundation? Trödel|talk 14:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was a little curt and dismissive in my comment earlier today, for which I apologise. I suppose the reason I'd oppose discussion of IfD reform on this page is the general principle that hard cases make bad law. Effectively we'd be looking at the few cases where a pretty good process arrives at decisions that some people decide is not appropriate.

I am sensitive to your concern about the fact that only more motivated people would be watching for deletions and whatnot, and that the more motivated people are anti-deletion on this issue (but not all-see Cantus and others, and of course it does take some considerable motivation to nominate an image for deletion in the first place). One of the reasons I gave for asking for Sannse's original poll on Autofellatio to have a decent deadline (March 20, six weeks in the future at the time I proposed it) was the possibility that the poll would be skewed if it had a shorter deadline, for two reasons:

• Cantus had immediately previously been fussing around trying to create new policy pages with a view to marking certain images as objectionable by a VfD-like process. This got a lot of anti-censorship people interested.

Thanks for this history - I need to review this to talk more intelligently Trödel|talk 15:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The people who had Autofellatio on their watchlist would probably be used to the image and not inclined to delete it.

So I wouldn't be adverse to a wider poll on the autofellatio image, in principle. As long as the deletion policy current on IfD was followed, requiring a rough consensus for deletion, I'd probably find such a poll acceptable. It should probably take place on IfD but be listed on one of the Wikipedia:Village Pump pages. The time period for voting should be according to IfD policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (and I don't think an apology was necessary - though it is appreciated), I am going to give this some time to consider this and its implications, etc. Though I should probably start reading the Village pump more regularly☺. Trödel|talk 15:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo doesn't want this image. Zap time.

Jimbo, in this edit states that "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline". That in mind, I'm marking this for speedy deletion. Please also remove this image from the commons. Samboy 06:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's not a speedy criterion. --SPUI (talk) 07:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whatever Jimbo says *is* criterion. If Jimbo thinks this image is "completely unacceptable" for Wikipedia that means we should DELETE it. Apparently Jimbo is OK with linking the image. —Cantus…☎ 10:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) (Edited by Cantus…☎ 11:18, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC))

Judging from reaction on the article, there isn't consensus for that. If Jimbo wanted it deleted, period, he would delete it. --SPUI (talk) 10:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding that he wants the image linked "for now" while the current discussion goes on. But clearly in the end he wants to delete it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that if Jimbo wants it deleted he will do so. He doesn't need people running around inventing new criteria for speedies. We had an IfD (see above) and this one survived. I was surprised. It's up for IfD again. I kinda think it would be nice to see if it survives a second time. Meantime Jimbo can do what he likes with it, but it isn't for us mortals to go around doing stuff because of our impression of his opinion on something. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drawing

Is this new drawing a preliminary sketch? While I think the motivation was good, I hope it will be replaced by a polished version soon. His left leg is coming out of his thigh, for one thing. — Asbestos | Talk 18:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It appears I have reverted the drawing to the original image by accident. However, I don't know why the photo was overwritten in the first place - it survived IfD. In any case, I tried to revert it back to the drawing, but had no luck (hence my name in the edit summary three times). The drawing is still at Image:Autofellatio drawing.jpg. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since Image:Autofellatio drawing.jpg shows the drawing and this photo survived IfD (and was not deleted by Jimbo, only linked in autofellatio), I'm reverting back to the photo. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usage in Vandalism

This picture has been used by User:Teresia to vandalise the Main Page. It allows to easily offend a lot of people and should be given some sort of a warning page. It should only be possible to access this kind of pictures after being warned about it. This image has been in a direct link on the main page for half an hour, this is not acceptable. Even in an Encyclopedia somebody should not be able to trick somebody into viewing this picture without their expressive prior consent. grovel 16:19, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

The same vandal which made me accidentally delete the image - and the worst is that such double language redirects don't show in any "what links here" list. I know the image survived IfD, but I would have voted delete if I noticed it (I rarely monitor the delete discussions, too much traffic and too many trolls) - and am I the only one who suspects this porn image is actually a copyvio from an adult website? IMHO the drawing at commons at the same image filename is much better - not that offensive and not that likely to be used for childish vandalism. andy 16:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While I sympathize, the pictures at penis have been used far more in vandalism campaigns. This is the first time, to my knowledge, some dick has plastered autofellatio.jpg all over inappropriate places (I could be wrong, but it hasn't been a problem). At autofellatio we do link to this image via the {{linkimage}} template after a ton of discussion and polls at Talk:Autofellatio. Whether its possible use in vandalism is a good enough reason to delete the image entirely seems very suspect to me. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I threw up when I saw that picture I honestly can't how anyone could view this picture as encylopedic!--198 03:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I honestly can how anyone could view this picture as encyclopedic! It depicts the subject of the article. Perhaps you'd like to submit that to VfD? (It would fail. Even autocunnilingus, which is much less common, overwhelmingly survived VfD). TIMBO (T A L K) 08:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

alright. This image is used for front page vandalism now. Since even at the time of its inclusion in autofellatio, it was never more than a thumbnail, I will reupload it in reduced size. At the moment it is orphaned anyway, and used for vandalism exclusively. It it is ever used again in any function that is remotely resembling encyclopedicity, it will again be thumbnailed. There is no need for it to be in the present resolution, other than as a shock image for the benefit of vandals. dab (ᛏ) 10:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It was never, ever a thumbnail. You should restore it to its original resolution. Reducing the utility of a picture is not a sensible way to deal with a bit of minor vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also what's with the false claim that this is an orphaned image, "used exclusively in vandalism"? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the first time I saw this image, it was thumbnailed on AUtofellatio. I realize it is now linked to from there. Well, it is still illustrating what it's supposed to illustrate. Anybody caliming it must be desktop size to make its point is imo making clear that this is not about the image's information value at all, but for some sort of weird satisfaction to have WP host porn images. The vandalism we are talking about is not minor at all. People clicked on Gary Kasparov's article, and found their screen filled with this image. The thumbnail would have been bad enough, but that's just not acceptible. dab (ᛏ) 22:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow that argument at all. Of course a bigger image is better--that is true of all photographs. There is no need to make it smaller and smudgy and doing so detracts from its usefulness. People looking at Gary Kasparov should not see the image at all, but that's what vandals are like. This is a Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"the bigger the better"? I'm having trouble to assume good faith here. dab (ᛏ) 11:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Take some time out. If we can't assume good faith, then we might as well surrender the site to the vandals. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You know, even if the size is reduced, it can still be enlarged artificially. It'll be slightly blockier, but still have the same 'shock value'. --SPUI (talk) 11:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we can have starwars.wikicities.com, can we please also do porn.wikicities.com? I don't care about the Autofellatio article, but it is inacceptible that the serious articles on WP suffer from this adolescent bullshit. (yes, in case you haven't noticed, many articles on WP are crap, but tolerated because they cause no harm. This image does cause harm) dab (ᛏ) 11:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree, this image does cause harm. As I said above, it should be impossible to trick anybody into seeing this image without prior consent. There are reasons for keeping this image (even in high resolution) and browsing through my Pschyrembel definately shows more shocking pictures.

But there really should be a template for a warning page for this kind of pictures, so that it would no longer be possible to directly link (or thumbnail) it from other wikipedia content. This would solve a lot of discussions with this kind of explicit conent and has nothing to do with censorship - and IMHO, anybody arguing against such a solution can not really be taken seriously: this would be an approach for an encyclopedia to present clearly disturbing and pornographic images (and yes, while being informative, this picture is both). grovel 17:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand how this image can be seriously said to cause harm. It's just a bloke sucking his penis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Relativism is a very, very lame position. There happens to be a widespread cultural consensus, not restricted to "the West" in any way, that when clicking on Gary Kasparov people will prefer to see an image of Gary Kasparov rather than a bloke sucking his penis. Hosting this image gives WP a reputation as a porn site, while many Wikipedians, strangely enough, and out of reproachable cultural bias, will prefer not to be considered pornographers. I have nothing against porn. I enjoy looking at porn, sometimes (although usually a slightly different kind, yuck:p). But I would appreciate to find porn on porn sites, and knowledge-related stuff on Wikipedia, thank you very much. For the record, I would be just as opposed to porn that I find appealing than to porn that I find disgusting, on Wikipedia, that's not the issue at all. dab (ᛏ) 20:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we stop talking about Gary Kasparov! I wouldn't want to see a picture of autofellatio when I clicked on Gary Kasparov, nor would I want to see a picture of a penis or caterpillar, Adolf Hitler or Mahatma Gandhi. There are some images that may be offensive out of context but are nonetheless relevant to a particular article. (I think some people would be much, much more offended to find this adorning the Main Page as a result of vandalism.) The image is not the problem – if they don't have the autofellatio pic, the vandals could use a penis pic or even upload an offensive image of their choice. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why you're referring to relativism, dab--I'm no relativist. I'm just saying that in my opinion a few people getting worked up about a vandal putting an inappropriate picture on Gary Kasparov doesn't seem to me a good reason to get rid of a perfectly useful, detailed picture illustrating autofellatio. I don't think Wikipedia is in danger of being regarded as a porn site. It's an encyclopedia. As to your opinions of pornography, they're neither here nor there--they don't really explain why you seem to be so dead against this picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok, so Gary Kasparov was beside the point. Nevertheless, this is where most people, numerically, have seen the image, because that's how it was linked to from the Main Page. I understand that the image illustrates autofellatio, and I'm not opposed to having an image doing that. the points are:

• the image is also cheap porn. even this subject could be presented slightly more aesthetically
• the image is a probable copyvio. its origin is unknown. yeah, some sockpuppet uploaded it, claiming to have made it himself, but such a claim is worthless. Usually, an image would be deleted on this ground alone
• the image is very large, larger than it needs to be to make its point (even when it was inline on autofellatio, it did not appear in its full size
• the image is used as a shock image in vandalism

considering these points, we have to weigh the interests of Wikipedia. We are weighing illustrating an obscure article with a cheap, unaesthetic, copyvio'd image against having prominent articles vandalized with porn. Reducing the size of the image would be a compromise, both to address the copyright issue (fair use??), and the vandalism issue (less prominent shock value -- yeah, it could be blown up though), while still fulfilling its function. Maybe even if I am interested in an illustration of autofellatio, I don't care to see the penis at 300dpi, ever think of that. Additionally, the image could be converted to grayscale: the illustrative value will remain the same, while the shock value would be reduced. These are suggestions for compromise. You can argue the images benefit, but you cannot honestly ignore the problems it is causing. WP cannot be held hostage by your encyclopedic eagerness to illustrate autofellatio: you should be prepared to compromise: there is no reason the image has to remain in the exact same format in which it was uploaded. dab (ᛏ) 09:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're still talking about destroying the current image and replacing it by an inferior one. That isn't a compromise. As someone else pointed out, it won't achieve the object you think it will because the image can still be resized as large as the vandal wants. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm still suggesting replacing it with a less offensive one, and possibly a legal one. Your continued refusal to take the concerns over this image seriously, and your refusal to compromise seem insincere to me. This is not how Wikipedia works: good-faith editors should take each others priorities seriously, and attempt to work on a compromise. As it is, you're just sitting on this image and refuse to look at the damage it is doing. dab (ᛏ) 08:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This image was used for vandalizing the online poker page. If it were up to me, this image would be gone. An illustration would run a lot less chance of offending people or being used for vandalization. Yafujifide 01:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio

it seems the case will now be decided on a technicality, copyvio. While I'm glad if that rids us of the image, it's still not a very satisfactory outcome, since we failed to negotiate the content-dispute, and the same thing will be reiterated as soon a somebody posts a similar image legally. dab (ᛏ) 18:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why am I receiving this page from "you got new messages"?

WTF?! My user page is hijacked! How to recover this vandalism? Minghong 20:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I clicked "You have new messages." and was taken here. I cannot access my talk page through "My talk" either. Hyacinth 20:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go to your User talk page history and revert. Hyacinth 20:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Silsor! Hyacinth 20:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, the one who did that is ZA. Someone should do something to him/her... The victim list: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=ZA Minghong 20:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This vandal asshole is now targeting new users, which will scare away them for sure if they go to this image as welcome. This has to stop! andy 21:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocking and summarily executing ZA seems in order. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"14:13, 18 Mar 2005, Silsor blocked ZA (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (vandalism)" Hyacinth 00:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Help please. I can't get this picture out of my talk page. I tried to revert but I keep getting a blank page when I go to the edit page. My talk page has been hijacked and I don't want this picture anywhere near my user account. Dblevins2 04:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's gone. Thanks to whoever got rid of it. Dblevins2 04:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Topf just dumped this on my user page. I am really pissed off! Why was this image been left so long. I think this sort of stuff, which is illegal in many countries including the one I live in, should not be hanging around wikipedia waiting for someone to download it it on some unsuspecting subject. Impossible to remove without at least getting the page recorded on one's computer, etc. Is also User:ZA, is doing this as his contribution. --SqueakBox 04:00, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

This happened to me too, and I can't get to the history page. Any ideas how to get rid of it? 24.215.177.116 19:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed that! Any chance of providing instructions so victims can repair the damage themselves? 24.215.177.116 20:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. I'm porn-positive and everything, so this didn't freak me out (though I'm glad I'm not at work at the moment). It's a minor annoyance, and I'm glad this page tells me how to fix it. But good grief, that's immature. FYI, the culprit was: (cur) (last) 04:23, 21 Mar 2005 Oxag if you want to do anything with that. But the main problem is that I got all excited that I had finally received a comment on my talk page, and it wasn't legit!

--Etoile 04:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

this has to stop, now. No matter how encyclopedic it may be, we are really shooting ourselves in the foot with this image. We need some sort of monitoring system telling us when this image is added to any article or talk page (as it is, we can watch articles, but we can not watch images being added.). Furthermore, this image particular image has to go, now. Host it somewhere private, and we can link to it in all its glory from the Autofellatio article, no harm done. It just won't do to keep it here to harass users away from WP. This is serious, people. Not everybody is able to just shrug at its sight. dab (ᛏ) 16:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have submitted a bugfix/feature request to avoid this. --SPUI (talk) 16:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

this won't help much. the image can still be inlined on any user page. dab (ᛏ) 16:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But then it's at least editable without special knowledge. And the "what links here" list of the image will show those article which show the image. However the bug was a duplicate, I added it earlier as #1656. andy 17:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even if we know exactly where it is at all times, that doesn't stop trolls from dropping it onto the talk pages on logged in users. I know of at least one newcomer that was scared away by a troll dropping this onto his talk page before it could be removed; only about a minute passed between the time it was added, and the time the newcomer saw it. Bug or no bug, this image simply isn't worth the trouble, principles be damned. – ClockworkSoul 18:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not a duplicate; yours deals with the way the redirect message is avoided, while mine would prevent the redirect completely. Yeah, the picture can be put right on the page, but deleting it won't keep someone from uploading it or another picture for vandalism. --SPUI (talk) 20:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By that logic, why should we delete anything, even vandalism, when it can simply be readded; why should we bother with VfD? By similar logic, why should we add anything, when it can simply be removed anyway? – ClockworkSoul 21:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because it's not just vandalism - it's part of an article's content (albeit linked, which I was against). TIMBO (T A L K) 00:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New and old users may be harassed through a variety of ways. Other potentially offensive pictures could be used (Satanic images put on the talk pages of self-identified Christians, etc), redirects to potentially offensive articles (though this is easier to figures out and fix), and just plain offensive text on user talk pages such as slurs, threats, and other harassment.

I would guess that the people doing this vandalism, if they care at all about Wikipedia (and are not just sadists), hope to get this image removed. Let's not make it that easy. Hyacinth 23:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your logic, Hyacinth, so please correct me if I'm mistaken. Your premises are that 1) vandals want the image removed, and 2) we must do the opposite of what vandals want, even if it's not to our advantage. Your logical conclusion, therefore, is that we should not remove the image. I propose that your argument isn't entirely cogent, because 1) vandals clearly love the image, and if it is deleted will have to think of some other way of harassing us (which will no doubt be less effective), and 2) doing the opposite of what vandals want is acting on pure spite, and is by definition illogical: we need to do whats best for wikipedia, and ignore them entirely. That being said, I propose that (in part) because the image in question has made the lives of trolls a virtual field day lately, and because we should do what's best for Wikipedia, we should delete the image. – ClockworkSoul 00:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I've come to the same conclusion as Hyacinth, and I think it's entirely cogent, so I'll try to explain.

Some autofellatio background: It's no secret that there are people who hate this image, whether or not it's useful in an article. They couldn't get enough support to get it deleted on IfD (even though it's been listed maybe 4 times in the last month or two).

The vandalism, from what I've seen, has been almost exclusively on User_talk pages, with perhaps a couple very visible Main Page attacks. The vandalism has used some relatively sophistocated tactics, so the vandal is familiar with wikipedia. From my experience, vandalizing user talk pages is not the run-of-the-mill vandal's MO. It's obvious he/she wants to personally upset individual users. What would those people do when being exposed to an explicitly sexual picture out of context where they expected to find a comment for them? Obviously many would be surprised, angered, etc. I would be too.

Thus I think it's not a very large leap to say that the vandal is trying to get this image removed. Why should we not remove it? Because it has not been my experience that we should take vandalism into account when weighing pros and cons. The penis pictures are quite explicit too, should we delete them preemptively? How about clitoris, vulva, etc. Evaluating the merit of this image out of its context isn't appropriate, IMHO. This is a wiki, and there will be vandalism, and it angers me to no end – but we should try to stop the vandalism, not censor ourselves in the hopes of having less vandalism. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way I suspect there is some way for developers or sysops to find out this vandal's or vandals' IP(s) and block them. Can that be done, if it hasn't already? SPUI's bugfix seems to target the other problem, which would help us find the vandalism and fix it more quickly. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility is that the vandal wants to keep the image. So, he makes us think that he wants to make us delete it, and then out of spite we keep it. Or maybe that's what he wants us to think; and in fact he wants to delete it. Or maybe that is a ruse too. See infinite recursion.

In fact, IMO it's most probable that he just wants to make fun of us, and doesn't care at all whether the image is kept or not. He is probably reading this discussion right now and laughing at the mess he created. What he wants is chaos. See Internet troll for more info.

--cesarb 01:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well yeah, there's that ... but I wasn't talking about keeping it in spite as much as I was saying vandalism is not a good reason to start deleting stuff. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I definitely understand that opinion, and I fully agree that an image should not be removed solely because it's used for vandalism, if it has some other worth: This image, however, is pretty much used exclusively for vandalism. After all, what's so complicated about that particular act that isn't already conveyed both in the textual description and by the other drawing? This image is not exactly clinical in its nature, it adds very little to Wikipedia (very little that we want, at least), and is clearly a copyvio. The reasons for deleting it are plentiful, the reasons for keeping it are scarce: exactly the reasons that "goatse man" isn't keep here. – ClockworkSoul 01:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with you on the image's utility. However, I direct you to Talk:Autofellatio where this question (and maybe all others, given the length of discussion!) is debated as infinitem. There are plenty of people who feel that the image is appropriate, useful, etc., although there is a significant minority who feels that it isn't and wikipedia shouldn't have anything to do with such a picture. This doesn't add up to a consensus to delete. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heya, Timbo. The only VfD I saw was a 9:9 tie back in January; was there another later on (I genuinely don't know). Now that this image has seen a broader audience, I think we have a more representative cross-section of the Wiki population interested. Perhaps we should just have another VfD, and see if the original results are repeated? Once its over, maybe we can finally put this thing to bed? – ClockworkSoul 04:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you purposefully misunderstood my argument: The image is not necessary for vandalism, thus vandalism is not a reason to remove it. Hyacinth 02:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I understand it fully, but I'm saying that it's not simply that this image is being used by the GNAA for trolling, it's (among other things) the degree to which it can, and is, being used. Plus, it's a copyvio. Plus, it's an illegal image in many nations. Plus, it's an image that many people reactly strongly and negatively to, in shock site style. Plus, it contributes nothing to the common discourse that isn't already conveyed more than adequately in the parent article. At this point, what reason is there for keeping it? – ClockworkSoul 04:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the image is not necessary for vandalism, but it facilitates vandalism. a vandal uploads goatse, it's deleted within the minute. But with this image, we have to grit our teeth and let the vandals have their way with it? I think not. You want to illustrate autofellatio? Provide a legal and less obtrusive image. We are not talking about kids writing PENIS on random articles. These are vandals doing us, and other Wikipedias, serious harm. I cannot at this point take seriously any editor arguing that this exact image should be kept. dab (ᛏ) 09:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well there are 42 who think that it should not only be kept, but be displayed inline at autofellatio. TIMBO (T A L K) 15:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A vandal uploads goatse, we delete it (a click, a checkbox, type in reason, hit delete).

A vandal links this image from a page, and generally makes it obvious they're a vandal. Go to their contribs list, hit rollback, click special pages, scroll down, click block user, copy-paste their name, type something about autofellatio.jpg vandalism, click block. go over to their talk page, give them the test5 message. Either way, it's not that much of a pain to deal with. Especially since in that kind of blatent vandalism, when shock images are involved, they can't claim they aren't a vandal.

Note that none of the above applies to other potential reasons to delete this image, e.g. that it's a copyvio if it turns out that it's not the original work of the author. Those issues apply no different than to any other image of uncertain copyright status. Pakaran 15:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However, even if the image is a copyvio or not, the image is still being used for vandalism. My page was hit, and so was 30 others on the 25th, and this is not the first time it was done. I am not going to say wether or not this image should be gone, but this image needs a close eye on it. Plus, (this is my POV) if the image was deleted, I am sure someone on here or the GNAA or whoever they are will just add it back again. This is going to be just one fight in this never ending war. Zscout370 04:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Image was replaced today with a textual warning - duly reverted, since consensus seems to be that people want this. Chris 18:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This image has been used twice, one yesterday night and again tonight, in the Spanish Wikipedia by two vandals to redirect a lot of pages to it. Tonight it has been a massive vandalism made by a user with the nick CryptoDerk so be aware.--AnnaP 00:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably using that name es:User:CryptoDerk (and apparently Netoholic and SPUI) as retaliation for reverts of similar vandalism done in the English Wikipedia by en:User:CryptoDerk --Henrygb 03:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I messed up the image history, I misclicked the rev link. Joefu 07:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ceterum censeo thing

This image would be a clearly pornographic image in Germany (where I am from) and it would be beyond question illegal (and Germany is not a country with very restricting laws regarding sexuality). I am much wondering how it can be that in a land, which considers something like "Nipplegate" as a big scandal, there is so low opposition against an image like this. It adds nothing to the autofellatio article what can't be imagined by the people reading the article or can be shown with a schematic drawing (for people with very low imagination). It just affects people protesting against the image and I can not imagine that this ever will stop, because there will always be people being offended by this image. It's a Pandora's box of protests. Even if you feel there is no compelling necessity to delete this, consider if it is an essential information without which the article looses completeness. Offending people is not a thing, which is positive or a goal of Wikipedia. --::Slomox >< 01:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How does the image negatively affect those protesting against it?

Can you cite the German law against pictures such as this one? Hyacinth 02:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Psychological violence is still violence. How do you think this affects Arabian school girls, nuns in a convent or a 85 years old retired priest from Utha? But why do I tell you that, you don’t care, of course, why should you take them into account… It's their problem if they are offended. How many minorities do you want to exclude exactly? Is that the way the Wikipedia should work?

Do you want a list of countries where porn is illegal? Go to porn, it's your enciclopedia after all... Btw, there is a law protecting children from porn in Germany. You can take a look at w:de:Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien and w:de:Jugendschutzgesetz. This means Wikipedia could become almost impossible to get in Germany if we make porn accessible to children. And we are talking about Germany, old, liberal Europe, remember? Do you know how this works in other countries? Of course not! Why do I ask... --84.161.52.94 08:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No one has been convicted of anything. No one has been formally charged with anything. No law has even been cited here by an inidividual. When the image is used improperly it is quickly reverted. If anyone is at fault it is the vandals. Why not ask them these questions? Hyacinth 01:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is nipplegate? TIMBO (T A L K) 02:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've answered my own question – nipplegate. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

because vandals don't discuss, they vandalize. it is up to us. In the words of the Spanish Wikipedian below, have you no taste? dab (ᛏ) 06:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not upload the file, and I did not redirect my own talk page to the image. I do not enjoy being harassed by it, but that does not mean policy should be set aside. The image has now gone through the proper deletion process and been deleted. Hyacinth 08:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What are you thinking about?

It is really shocking that such an image would be in the Wikipedia. I am a user of the Spanish Wikipedia, my user page was vandalized yesterday and I found myself suddenly in front of a porno image of some poor guy trying to suck his own dick. I am gay and I do porn, so don't even try to call me prude. But there is a time and a PLACE for such things and Wikipedia is NOT IT. What kind of encyclopaedia is this? Would this picture be in the Bitish Encyclopaedia? Should it? This picture has not the quality and probably is copyrighted. Don’t you have any TASTE?

I have been reading the discussions about the picture and have the impression that most people that are in favour either don’t care about the opinion of others or want to shock. Even a fork or an alert to avoid seeing the image directly is not acceptable. Well this is a COLLABORATIVE encyclopaedia, not a place to shock people nor to ignore the sensibilities of other.

For the people defending this picture as illustrative. Should we put also some porn pic on the sex article? A small porn film would be even better! And now that we are on this road, why don’t we illustrate homosexual with Jeff Stryker bumping the shit out of Paulik? That would be ILLUSTRATIVE. But why stop here, we have loads of articles without pictures… what about zoophilia? Yes I’d love to see some chick bumped by a dog! What do I say a dog, by a horse! People need to see it is possible! And next? Child porn, torture, cannibalism, scat? Where do you stop? How far do I go until you are shocked?

Now the argument will be: the image was voted and it stays! OK, so a small majority didn’t find it offensive? Well, I’ll tell my friends from the "Bump Your Dog Club" to come here and vote on the bestiality thing. We NEED a small film to illustrate the article. And if someone doesn’t want to see it or is offended, he shouldn’t come to the Wikipedia!

And then there is the censorship thing. Freedom of speech is not absolute. If I say that the vandal that redirected my talk page is a S*O*B, that is not freedom of speech. It is not even accepted on the Wikipedia. There is a thing many people forget or even laugh at: RESPECT. You should respect other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. If you think autofellatio should have an illustration, so be it, but try to offend the smallest number of people. See zoophilia for example. And that is just COMMON SENSE. It looks like if there is no law against, it’s allowed and even should be done! And don’t try to stop it, you nave no right. If people had more common sense and more RESPECT for the opinion of other we might need a lot less laws. We wouldn’t need all those laws prohibiting porn and stuff because they wouldn’t be necessary. Everyone would be doing their stuff without offending the rest. Download the image on your hard drive and j.o. on it, but don’t make me see it.

If you don’t abuse your rights, you might keep them, the important part being ABUSE. How long do you think will it take until enough people are offended by this image and delete it, and maybe not just that, but delete all images that have remotely to do with nudity or sex and even ban them from the Wikipedia? Then of course I'll see you crying about censorship and so on. I hope you know most countries in the world (including USA) have laws against porn. Are we risking the whole project because of an ugly image? And you want to distribute this encyclopaedia in Third World Countries? How self-centered can you get? Of course, there will be people saying it is worth the risk, we have to fight, but think about what we (the world) could loose because of a petty war (Free porn??) that’s not Wikipedia’s to fight.

It is really pathetic that some troll has put a porn image on the Wikipedia and we have to spend our time discussing if this is the place for it. Have a nice day and to all those voting to keep the pic, I hope you have fun with your image. You won't be seeing me here in a looong time --84.161.52.94 08:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] March 22 poll

See subpage, Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March_22_IfD dab (ᛏ) 09:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fraudulent link

This link tlh:quvwI'pu' tIQHa' yeSuwa' 'IHrIStoS lalDan is directing to the photo. I don't know how it works, but it does. I removed it from the Church of Latter Day Saints article. -Willmcw 19:48, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

The link is the work of a vandal. I have no idea how he did it. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I should assume, by redirecting the referenced page in the tlh namespace to the image. Seems to have been fixed now--80.58.43.44 02:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete on the grounds of duplication

There's now another image which replaces this. Assuming that that doesn't get deleted in it's VFD, I think that this image could easily go now. I'm planning to list it on IFD again as follows:

This image is now a duplicate of another image and is not linked from an article. The drawing isn't particularly useful and the previous photo had copyright problems. As such it has no encyclopedic properties any more and should be deleted.

This is not an attempt at censorship of your beloved "porno images", as your opponents would have it. In protest against unthought out censorship plans I have already voted against the deletion of the other image. This is simply a statement that the other material is solely justified by it's claims to encyclopedic value and since this isn't used any more, it can't make that claim. Comments on my proposal here, but not votes please until the right time.

Mozzerati 08:02, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture or why isn't it being used? Hyacinth 09:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency Change

This image was being inappropriately used on the Featured article page, so I changed it by grabbing the first image available. I don't know who is responsible for using the autofellatio image on the featured article page, but this was the fastest thing I could think of to deal with it.

Somebody please fix the Featured article and then restore the autofellatio image, if that is what is decided.

Monito 1 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

OK, the main Wikipedia home page has been changed so that the image for the Featured Article on Vanilla Ninja is now not this one. I am unable to revert this image. The Image history seems to only have the one.

OK again, I've changed the image to a neutral Wikipedia image. The original image is not available to me, nor do I care for it. Somebody vandalized the Wikipedia home page by putting the original image into the Vanilla Ninja featured article blurb. I changed this image to something else and in the process, perhaps underneath, while the upload was happening, I think a librarian with extra powers may have deleted the original image. Sorry for any confusion, etc., but I was trying to do damage control on some highly inappropriate vandalism. Monito 1 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

this image was deleted by VfD consensus anyway. I will protect it now. If you want to see a guy sucking his penis, go to Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg, which has survived VfD and is on Wikipedia "legally". dab (ᛏ) 2 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. It isn't going on the Main Page. Anyway, this cat picture was never deleted at WP:IFD. As far as I can tell, there was no image here from when Quadell deleted it on March 29 to when Monito uploaded the cat on July 1.

The cat picture should be deleted entirely. It does not belong on Wikipedia, and most certainly not under this name or in this place. Monito 2 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

sure, I was saying that "Autofellatio.jpg" was deleted by IFD, and I protected because people kept uploading nonsense and/or pornography under the name. Anything uploaded to this title should be considered a speedy, unless there is some really good explanation. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)