- File:Meandmybf.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)
Every user who commented favoured deletion, save the original uploader (and, not coincidentally, subject of the photo). Discussion on the relevant article talk pages rejected the inclusion of the image on those pages. The summary given on the image page itself states that "consensus was to keep," when that was not the case. Consensus was to delete; the deciding admin made the decision to keep apparently alone and against consensus --Exploding Boy (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in case you can't guess from the image name, this image is most definitely Not Safe For Work. --Stormie (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. The consensus in the IFD discussion seems quite clear with unrebutted evidence presented that the image is being used in deliberately disruptive ways. This seems beyond the discretion granted to admins to override a closure. Rossami (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep Closing admin gave valid reasons, plus if the image is used to disrupt it can always be put on the image blacklist. Garion96 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (as deleter) - My statement when closing the debate was "Kept, since it's clearly encyclopedic (since we have articles on the topic). No arguments have been made that show any policies this image violates (other than stating that it's unencyclopedic, which seems false on its face). I can't find any reason to delete this free image." This image has been used in the past in Bareback (sex) and Sexual intercourse, encyclopedic topics which it illustrates. The three commenters who supported deletion had not commented on any other deletion debates that I can see, and seemed to not fully understand our deletion criteria: for instance, one commented that the image was "unencyclopaedic", but he had himself removed the image from an encyclopedic article it has illustrated saying it was "vandalism". (The nom has also done this.) If this were any other activity, a free image of that activity would be included in the relevant article, but buttsex is quite a taboo, and some will claim that a free image of an encyclopedic activity (not otherwise illustrated) is unencyclopedic, merely because they are uncomfortable with the content. This is censorship through the back door, if you'll pardon the expression. This was not an out-of-process deletion. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tho of course such detailed images should not be prohibited, this does strike me as perhaps a needlessly provocative image. I think the upper portion might be acceptable in bareback, which presently has no image. The current image for anal sex in Sexual intercourse seems quite satisfactory.DGG (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This and similar images have been largely rejected in favour of drawings in most sex-related articles. It was agreed in discussion about this image that it wasn't needed to illustrate the concept, unlike, for example, auto fellatio, where it was agreed that a photograph was needed to illustrate the concept. The creator of the image has used it in inappropriate ways, such as inserting it repeatedly into articles against/without consensus. The fact remains that the image was not kept because consensus was to keep, and use of this image in article space is controversial at best and against consensus. And just a point of correction: I (the original nominator) have never removed the image as "vandalism" as suggested above. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this edit you removed the image using the rollback feature, tagged as a minor edit. See help:Reverting, where it says "Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they do not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that 'I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation.' It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted."
- Overturn and delete Unless there is an editorial consensus that this image actually needs to be used in an article then the arguments that it is encyclopedic are correct. As it is there are no articles using this image, so I don't think it fair to disregard the delete arguments. And per trialsanderrors. 1 != 2 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet the bareback (sex) article does not have an image. This image has been added to that article numerous times, but a few users (including the nom and at least one delete voter) keeps removing it from that article, apparently reasoning that it would be better to not have an image in that article than have a free image that accurate shows the activity. On Talk:Bareback (sex), the reasons given are "Drawings would be preferable" (although no drawings exist), "this article doesn't need any image" (why is that?), "Wikipedia is not censored, but it's also not porn" (which is why the image should only be used in an applicable article), "Wikipedia is uncensored, but Wikipedia avoids profanity" (which completely misunderstands the Wikipedia:Profanity guideline), plus gratuitous references to "shock value", calling the image "quite pornographic", and instructing the uploader to "stop trolling!", etc. It's obvious that no one would object to the handshake article having an image, as it does, and many Iranian residents would say that the bikini article "doesn't need an image" like Image:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia 2 by David Shankbone.jpg since "Wikipedia is not porn". But judged on the merits, this images is as encyclopedic as Image:High-five.jpg. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As to why the bareback article doesn't need an image, one would have thought that was self-evident. Unlike the auto fellatio article, which it was widely agreed needed both an illustration and, preferably, a photograph (due to the unusual nature of the act, the likelihood that few people would have seen it in real life, and the potential difficulties in imagining it), nobody needs an image to illustrate sex without a condom. The use of that particular image in that article does nothing to enhance the text or the reader's understanding of it. The profanity guideline (and it is only a guideline) states that Wikipedia articles may contain profanity—but only for good reason. You may also wish to review WP:PORN which, while only an essay and not a policy, provides a useful overview of how such issues have been dealt with in the past. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the image's necessity, I still wonder why you don't feel the need to remove images from Handshake and High Five. As for censorship, WP:PORN is an essay, WP:PROFANITY is a guideline, and WP:CENSOR is a policy. The policy says that "articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)". Since we don't feel it necessary to remove images from Handshake and High Five ("nobody needs an image to illustrate. . ."), our policy doesn't allow us to remove this either, just because some find it disgusting. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say WP:CENSOR "doesn't allow ...", you are misstating the policy a bit. WP:CENSOR does not prohibit the community from removing content deemed unhelpful. What WP:CENSOR says is that we aren't compelled to remove content just because someone deems it inappropriate. I can support free speech without being obligated to wallpaper my house with it. The fact that Handshake has an image does not create a requirement that every other article have an image. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, editorial consensus has not shown it needed. As in a talk page discussion agreeing on it, not reverting the image in and out. There is a clear consensus that it be deleted in the IfD, and no consensus coming close to as strong for its use in an article. 1 != 2 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, delete per consensus Closing argument is a dissenting opinion, which goes to the bottom of the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with caveats — this should be added to the bad image list and restricted to use only on articles where there is consensus to include it. If there is no consensus to include it on any articles, then it should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 01:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to one opinion by Jimbo Wales, there may be potential legal concerns with this issue. See this deletion log, where Jimbo deleted a sexually explicit image on the grounds that it might violate the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act since we don't have records that the participants were over age 18. I think that law is probably unconstitutionally broad (because it has the potential to chill protected speech, like legitimate use in this encyclopedia), but I doubt the Foundation wants to be the test case on the issue. We have no way of knowing the age of the participants in this act. *** Crotalus *** 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's a good point, and not one that's been brought up before. IOn the one hand, Wikipedia has to comply with the law, regardless of what our policies are. On the other hand, to quote the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act article, "On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech." I don't believe that this image violates our Wikipedia policies, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the legal ramifications. I have e-mailed Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's general council, asking him for comment. If he replies to my e-mail, I'll let you know what he says. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, not useful for any articles, potential legal concerns per Crotalus. WP:NOT#CENSORED doesn't apply here. There was also a clear consensus to delete the image; usefulness doesn't override consensus, which was nearly unanimous for deletion. --Coredesat 04:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. Consensus was that this image is without redeeming encyclopedic value. Title of the image ("Meandmybf") indicates that the purpose of the image is not to illustrate, but to shock. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist Closing statement should have been the sixth view in the discussion, not the deciding factor. While consensus at the time was delete, new issues have been brought up here that should be addressed more fully at a new IfD. –Pomte 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, but, unless the legal concerns noted by Crotalus turn out to be valid (in which case we have a bigger issue on our hands), permit reupload under a less misleading title (preferably to Commons) and add to the bad image list. Yes, I realize that this is a complex and distinctly nonstandard suggestion, but I'd like to try offering something that would actually be a reasonable solution to the issue at hand, taking into account both the prior IfD debate, common sense, technical limitations of MediaWiki image handling and the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policies, rather than simply the closest standard DRV poll answer. For simplicity, unless the particular course of action I'm suggesting above gathers additional support, you may count it simply as "neutral" or perhaps "weak keep pending resolution of legal issues" when closing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good idea, accept that there is no consensus that it is of encyclopedic value to any article and plenty of consensus that it is not of encyclopedic value. Editorial consensus has not accepted this image into any article. 1 != 2 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. The overriding concern for me is the image title, which suggests inappropriately provocative, if not vandalistic, intent. I could support, editorially, the inclusion of an identical image with a different title on several sexuality pages; but, WP should not encourage puerile sexual "humor". Xoloz (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and strong delete. My Lord, that picture is explicit. There is a difference between having a useful image depicting a sexual position, and a picture that Hustler would pay 20 bucks for. The consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. There are other ways to demonstrate sex that do not involve a camera 2 inches from the genitals during the act. I think common sense here says this picture doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and if it weren't for the fact that everyone is so worried about "censoring people", there wouldn't even be a discussion. At the very least, this should be on the bad image list.--UsaSatsui (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete Poor close - consensus was clearly to delete on grounds that have been reiterated here. This is gratuitous. Eusebeus (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
