Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/Receive Anal Sex


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No Consensus/default keep. I have considered this question for some time. Numerically, with 16 deletion comments versus 11 keep comments (59%), a consensus doesn't appear present. Still, a consensus might exist on the strength of the arguments given; here, established Wikpedians are found on both sides of the debate. Kirill Loskin's citation of the ArbCom principle carried great weight with me, as did the repeated truth that userspace belongs to the project, not any individual. On the opposing side, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection minors is a strong argument, together with the user's own assertion that his page is relatively "matter-of-fact," supported by bd2412, who suggests that this template can be read as a statement of encyclopedic expertise. On balance, I do not find a firm basis in the arguments given to consider this page "disreputable". The arguments, too, are evenly matched. Xoloz 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/Receive Anal Sex
Completely beyond what is considered acceptable and can be a WP:POINT violation. It is so obscene that it distracts Wikipedians from carrying out normal activities. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 02:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep because its not in the template namespace, it's in the userspace and Wikipedia isn't censored. I fail to see the reason that it is so obsense that it distracts you. The actual image in the box is an arrow. — The King of Kings  02:18 June 25 '06
 * The image that's used is not the point. A line has to be drawn somewhere and it's drawn before this userbox. I consider myself pretty open minded but even this does not belong in an encyclopedia. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete It is a bit excessive, And it really doesn't belong on wikipedia. It would be a strong delete but it's not in the template namespace, so it's not as bad. ILovePlankton 02:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see how my user template is a WP:Point violation.  I did not break any policies by creating this template, so it is not a WP:Point violation.  Wikipedia has a lot of user boxes that deal with sexual orientation.  This is just an extension of the listed boxes about sexual orientation.  It's not any more obscene than the user template that says people are gay.  If a user had the acceptable template stating that they were gay, what would other people think that user does?  This template is no more obscene than the gay template.--Dark Tichondrias03:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The point user User:nathanrdotcom made that this does not belong on an encyclopedia disregards where it is on the encyclopedia. First, user pages do not belong in a traditional encyclopedia. Furthermore, user pages that state views which are not a NPOV do not belong in a traditional encyclopedia. The important difference is user pages are not encyclopedic pages. Since my page is not an encyclopedic page, it should not be monitored with the same rigor given encyclopedic pages.--Dark Tichondrias 03:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Stating that I like anal sex is no more obscene than the article page itself. User:nathanrdotcom claimed that he was so distracted by this that he couldn't carry out their normal activities. There is an article in Wikipedia about anal sex which is much more in depth and graphic. Does this encyclopedic page also cause User:nathanrdotcom to become incapacitated in distraction? It surely does not.  --Dark Tichondrias 04:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I warn you, you are treading a very thin line by presuming to tell others what I believe and what I do not (before this MfD, you likely didn't even know who I was). I caution you on personally attacking others. Please review WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL. Do also review WP:MFD which states that MfD/AfD/anything 'for deletion' is not intended as a personal attack. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 04:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the personal attack. It is true I don't know anything about you.--Dark Tichondrias 04:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I direct you to my userpage then. Read to your heart's content. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 04:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Policies are what determines where the line is drawn; individual users do not determine where "it's drawn". User:nathanrdotcom claimed "A line has to be drawn somewhere" and "it's drawn before this userbox".  Wikipedia is not censored for minors, so there does not exist an established policy between adult content before where the line is "drawn" and after.  For  User:nathanrdotcom to individually make up his own form of policy is against policy. This could be considered a Wikipedia point violation if it were acted upon, because it would have to break with policy to make a point and revise existing policy.--Dark Tichondrias 04:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remember to thread your discussions properly. A comment in response to another comment goes one level deeper (an extra colon), not two or three. Also, you are appear to be constantly overstating your point. I remind you yet again that MfD's/AfD's/TfD's/anything "for deletion" is not a personal attack. It is a meant as a consensus of editors who agree/disagree/etc on a decision to keep/delete/etc a page/template/etc. Please read Wikipedia policy a little closer as I don't think you're understanding the process. If you continue on this road, you may find you yourself breaking WP:POINT by needlessly defending yourself over and over. I don't know you as a person. I have nothing against you. You are perceiving a personal attack when none exists. Thank you. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 04:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it is true that having a page put on MfD is not a personal attack on its author, I never said adding my template to MfD was a personal attack on me. Also, I am not restating a single point, but adding new arguments.--Dark Tichondrias 04:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No, you never said anything, but you originally considered this MfD an attack - enough to attack me in return. How do you respond to that? You imply it's an attack by your unnecessary need to justify and defend yourself. This MfD has had more threads than most MfDs listed on WP:MfD right at this moment. There's no need to continue justifying yourself to me. MfD/AfD/TfD is only a decision to keep/delete/userfy/etc followed by a rationale as to why. If you disagree, you post: *Keep followed by a reason why, not a long drawn-out essay. It can be considered a debate in a limited sense. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 04:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I felt I had to argue against your arguments User:nathanrdotcom, because I felt they relied on emotive words and individual opinion not on policies. The feeling I gathered from the description "obscene" was disgust.  These emotive feelings could impair others from seeing the actual arguments based on policy.  Saying it "distracts Wikipedians" was an individual opinion of yours which I did not feel.  I had to separate the words which would color other user's decisions from the arguments based on policy.  --Dark Tichondrias 04:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My name is Nathan, not User:nathanrdotcom. I would appreciate if you'd use it if we're to have long-drawn out, tedious conversations about this userbox. "Arguing against my opinions" does not in any way whatsoever justify a personal attack so blatant that another user had to refactor it. Thank you. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 06:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, likely to bring the project into disrepute. Kirill Lokshin 04:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My user template will not bring the project into disrepute. The only example for a template likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute was pedophilia.  Pedophilia is considered a statistical abnormality which could make the user box section have low reputation if it were included.  On the otherhand, the numbers of straight individuals who have engaged in anal sex has bee estimated to be as high as 40%, so unlike pedophilia, anal sex is the norm.  The most likely reason why pedophilia was not allowed was because it is illegal.  It is similar to templates which state users smoke marijuana.  Allowing Wikipedians to have these templates would make it seem as if Wikipedia was endorsing illegal activities. -Dark Tichondrias 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete, saying that your a certain sexuality is one thing, but putting stuff about positions is just TMI. Burgwerworldz 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bottom and Top are parts of sexuality and gender identity, they are not positions. Notice my template mentions nothing about "positions" User:Burgwerworldz claims it mentions.  Activo and Pasivo in Latin America are actual sexual orientations.  The active, penetrator is considered straight regardless of their partner.  The passive, penetratee is considered gay regardless of their partner. The template when viewed from the Latin American culture is actually a declaration of sexual orientation.--Dark Tichondrias 05:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, but I have to say that this just goes into way to much detail. I think a "This user is gay" userbox (or whichever one applies) would be far more appropriate. What's next, "This user enjoys the missionary position." ? — Mi r  a  05:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The slippery slope argument is not applicable in this case, because User:MiraLuka is extending sexual orientation to sexual positions. Like I said to the above user, pasivo and activo are considered sexual orientations which correlated to a viado (gay) or a real man.  User:MiraLuka is implying that a template on sexual orientation if allowed will necessarily lead to a template on sexual position.  There are many user templates on sexual orientation which have been accepted and they have not caused a landslide  in users making ones on sexual positions.  This template will not be the precedence for templates on sexual position because it is not a sexual position template.--Dark Tichondrias 05:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your logic is flawed. As you very well know, Latin America isn't the whole world. Every culture in the world may view a sex/sexual orientation/sexual positions all differently. You can't make the argument that "Oh Latin America thinks this!". Many Wikipedians don't live there. Besides, another flaw in your argument: Does it make straight people who like anal sex (who are on the receiving end) gay? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. (Of all the things to never discuss in an MfD, this is one of them) — Natha  n  ( talk ) 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I perhaps did not phrase my last sentence clearly, but I did not mean to imply a "slippery slope." I was just saying that I feel this userbox to be just as ridiculous as a (theoretical) missionary position userbox. Oh, and it sure reads like a sexual position template to me. — Mi r  a  03:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Nathan.  Sergeant  Snopake  10:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm torn between the fact that I find the choice of icon amusing and the fact that I really didn't need to know that about a stranger on the internet. I'll say delete not because this is obscene but because userboxes with no encyclopedic value whatsoever should get chucked, userspace or not. Opabinia regalis 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you guys are spending so much time on this. Simple solution: DT, subst this to your page. Or are those opposed to the userbox opposed to that as well? --Lukobe 19:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now now, that last bit is completely unconstructive. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 20:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a real question. --Lukobe 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the obvious answer would be yes. This isn't Myspace where every little bit of cruft is allowed. Wikipedia should not be used as a substitute for someone's personal webpage. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 05:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not censored. And I fail to see what part of WP:POINT is violated. Charon X /talk 19:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep sure it's arguably inappropriate but wikipedia is not censored. The only arguments are that people don't like it not that it pushes a POV or is inherently divisive.  Eluchil404 06:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. This userbox has at least as much encyclopedic value than e.g. Template:User carbon (nil). Now, I'm not saying that Template:User carbon should be kept, I'm saying that as long as that is kept, deleting this userbox (by attacking its "obscenity", rather than its encyclopedic value) would be a violation of What Wikipedia is not. And as for "obscenity" take a look here and then decide if this userbox is more "obscene" than those images. --Zoz (t) 11:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * D-E-L-E-T-E Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and userpages are not your personal webpage. Utterly unencyclopedic. REmove and clean with windex. -- Drini 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Userboxes should somehow indicate a person's POV with regard to articles or a person's skills and areas of knowledge, or else encourage a welcoming community to all like the humor boxes.  This box fails.--M @ r ē ino 03:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This userbox doesn't indicate DT's POV or area of knowledge? I think, honestly, his page wouldn't suffer without it, but it's at least as useful as the humor boxes. --Lukobe 17:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Drini and Nathan. Utterly unencyclopedic and undermines the entire project.  -- Samir   धर्म 05:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. POV userbox in userspace. ~ PseudoSudo 06:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are good taste POV userboxes, poor taste POV userboxes, and very poor taste POV userboxes. This box falls into the last category, for which I feel nothing other than delete would do it justice. Kimchi.sg 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Kimchi.sg judgement that this is "very poor taste" does not support his/her reason for deleting this userbox, because it rests on their point of view which is not a Wikpedia policy. User:Kimchi.sg rests his/her reasons for deleting the user box on his/her point of view.  There is no Wikipedia policy stating that if userboxes are "very poor taste", based on the arbitrary point of view of other users, they should be deleted.---Dark Tichondrias 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be dense. There is no policy saying we are obliged to keep obscene material in userspace either. Kimchi.sg 10:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - "poor taste" it may be, too much information perhaps, but for now it should be allowed to stay. I can see it falling prey to friends of gays though! EVOCATIVE  INTRIGUE   TALKTOME  |  EMAILME  |  IMPROVE  ME  22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Kirill Lokshin -- Where 01:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - When Nathan wants a userbox dead, it needs to be dead. -- Cyde↔Weys  03:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's cute, but it's not a valid reason. *runs from Cyde* :P — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because ... that's really not something I ever need to know about a fellow user. -- Cyde↔Weys  04:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The remainder of this steamy dialogue moved to the talk page by Samir. Kimchi.sg 10:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, no less encyclopedic than anything else in user space. User:Angr 09:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see nothing wrong in openly stating one's sexual preferences, should you feel it is the proper thing to do; but I personally find the included statement unnecesarily explicit. Frankly, it's not the kind of thing I'd like visitors-critics-newcomers to see as their first image of Wikipedia.  Phædriel   ♥   tell me  - 00:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per CSD T1. A page designed for transclusion is a template, regardless of which namespace it is in. Cynical 12:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the case. This page is at MfD because it is a userspace page, not a template; see the first sentence of WP:TFD.  CSD T1 was designed with protecting the template namespace in mind; it is not part of the general criteria for the reason that  opinions are much more subjective for pages that aren't a direct part of the project. ~ PseudoSudo 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Penetrate censorship. Anally.  Grue   12:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. In userspace; no more "obscene" than the perfectly legit article to which it links; educates readers that the user with this tag may be particularly knowledgeable about the topic in question. bd2412  T 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Each to his own taste but this is just too much information on userpages.--John Lake 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you object to the info if it was not in a userbox? bd2412  T 01:34, 30 June 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.