Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery


 * 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 Delete. Too much time and energy is being expended on this issue (sorting/removing fair use images, etc.). El_C 06:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been asked to bring the attention of participants that the multi-page nomination, AfD/WikiPorn, has now been listed for deletion. El_C 18:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery
This seems to be an inappropriate use of wikipedia server space. Beatdown 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Many, although not all (I found one or two that aren't there and stopped looking then) of the images are available at Commons. I'm not sure if Beatdown's reason is technically sufficient, but, if it is, I wholeheartedly agree with the proposal to Delete it. Badbilltucker 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - although it doesn't break any of the rules of WP:USER per se, it also doesn't help build the encyclopedia in any way and Wikipedia is not a free host. Yomangani talk 00:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - WP:USER says "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian". User seems to be purposely taking advantage of wikipedia's "not censored" policy to show off some porn gallary - Gaming the system --Yaksha 02:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone also have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery? There is a link to it from User:Kingstonjr's userpage, and i have a sneaky suspision it may be a similar gallary to his "Work Gallary" --Yaksha 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - its true, articles are not censored, but this isn't an article and displays many images not included in articles because they are thought to be pushing the edge of pornography. This borders on a legal issue and thus to remain in compliance with US law, the safe thing is for this page to have its images not used on wikipedia removed. And yes, since our servers are in the US we do have to abide by US law. Doubtless I'll be called a prude for this, but in my opinion legality trumps the anti-censorship folks. I honestly don't see much difference here from users who fill pages up á la Myspace. Neither further the work on the encyclopedia. pschemp | talk 02:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, if the legality of showing nude images in plain sight is your concern, Nudity seems to have images of equal pornographyness. I don't see any distinction. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Um, these aren't just nude images, and although I don't personally agree with a distinction between educational and pornographic, the government makes one. Sorry you fail to see it but for the government, a far off shot of someone jogging nude is different that a close up of pierced genitalia. I'm not seeing any micro-close ups of genitals on Nudity or bondage or things like that. That's where we can run afoul and that's why many of those images are not in articles. I think if an image isn't currently being used on wikipedia, it has no place in the gallery. It certainly can't claim to be educational if it isn't being used to illustrate an article. pschemp | talk 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; I don't think I was viewing the right gallery. I retract that statement. These images are in the Commons though, which is another Wikimedia site. If you think they're particularily bad, you might want to take the individual images to the deletion stuff there as well... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment this discussion is about what's here, not on commons. The commons debate is a whole 'nother thing and I'm not commenting about it right now. pschemp | talk 03:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, this userpage can't be that much in the wrong if he's just linking to images that already exist in the Wikimedia projects. Delete the images themselves if your position is that it's a legal issue or such. There are still legitimate images in the gallery. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, actually, no many are on commons but aren't used on any project. It doesn't matter though. Our defense is that these are educational. If they aren't used in an article, that defense is void. pschemp | talk 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting the unused images should be removed from Commons? I agree. Hyenaste (tell) 03:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. I have no opinion on commons. pschemp | talk 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We should disallow unused, potentially pornographic images from Wikipedia, but allow them on Commons, another Wikimedia entity? Surely your opinion on right and wrong can't just stop once the URL changes to commons. Hyenaste (tell) 03:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with my opinion of right and wrong. My personal opinion is different than the law. However, I don't have the time or energy to start a campaign on commons. Its not my main project, and I'm not concerned with it. If you are, you go do it. pschemp | talk 04:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm just saying that the images should be deleted, not the list of them. Removing the gallery does nothing to solve the legal issues, as both projects are part of the Wikimedia foundation, and the images are still in plain sight. Before taking this up at the Commons though, I'd personally rather get in some contact with the Wikimedia folks who handle legal issues to see what their stance is with the new legislation having been passed. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And adding to that, the only legislation I can find (right now) regards intentionally decieving minors into viewing pornographic material. There's no intentional deception here. I'm no E-Lawyer though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well first, the Miller test is applicable, plus the state laws that vary from state to state, but basically its the one dealing with online content. The Communications Decency Act is the biggie though, and that's why porn sites ask if you are 18 before you enter. "Passed by the U.S. Congress on February 1, 1996, the CDA explicitly outlawed intentionally communicating “by computer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to any person the communicator believes has not attained the age of 18 years, any material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." Since we don't do that, we have to claim all our images are educational. pschemp | talk 04:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the PD/CC images; Remove the fair use images; Keep the page without the FU images. Daniel.Bryant 02:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? I thought voters were supposed to explain their reasoning. —Psychonaut 04:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a free host. WhisperToMe 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Needs to be deleted. Has many Inapporiate images (Judai105 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Keep. From User page: "...images which you are not free to use". At the basic level, the images at User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery are free to use, just as are the images at User:Linas/Pictures, for example. The policy Wikipedia is not a free host allows "only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages". Some of these images are used in articles and should be speedily allowed, but others only appear on this page or similar (User:Markaci/Nudity, User:The Honorable/Test). However, the policy does permit images that "will be used" in articles, a phrase that could be interpreted in different ways. If all the images were uploaded by User:Kingstonjr himself, I would likely agree that he is abusing Wikipedia is not a free host, but since these images come from a variety of uploaders, I cannot agree. Hyenaste (tell) 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree—having a list of your contributions to Wikipedia is an acceptable use of your user page. Therefore User:Linas/Pictures is acceptable.  I think User:Markaci/Nudity is also acceptable, even though it contains many of the same images as User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery, because it is an index with an identifiable, useful, objective criterion: images containing nudity.  However, User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery seems to be just a collection of graphic images the user has thrown together for the purpose of thumbing his nose at Wikipedia's censorship policy. —Psychonaut 04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment on the webhost point, many of these images are in the Commons, which is exactly where they should be. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment ---  It should be treated in a completely NPOV way. If a bunch of tree images in user space are appropriate to be deleted if the user can't justify their encyclopedia-ness then a bunch of images with other themes should be as well. But don't piss on a gallery cause you are offended at the contents. WAS 4.250 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of pictures forming a gallary just for the user to show off should be deleted regardless of the actual content. And that's exactly what this is - hundreds of pictures in a gallary that the user has put together to show off. --Yaksha 06:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the page itself, Remove images that are fair use or not used elsewhere in wikipedia, per Daniel.Bryant. Vectro 03:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "per" Daniel Bryant? Daniel Bryant didn't give any justification or reasoning for his vote, so why are you citing him?  (I'm not trying to be snide; just trying to elicit some explanation from you.) —Psychonaut 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have felt the fact that FU images aren't allowed in userspace needs no explaining. Daniel.Bryant 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The foundation has not expressed any concern about such galleries (if someone wants to bring it up with Brad they are of course free to do so) and so the legal argument seems tenuous at best. It isn't like any of them are child porn or something similar. As long as a user is being productive we give them large leeway in what they can do in userspace. The only other concern seems to be server use which does not seem severe- the image servers are currently fine as I understand it (again, if someone wants to bug the relevant people for more info, in this case the developers, then go ahead). If we want to limit how many images users can have in user space (which I wouldn't object to) we should construct a policy about it. Going and targeting the more potentially controversial such displays seems to be unecessary and counterproductive. As always of course all fair use images should be removed. JoshuaZ 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting sued for making pornography accessable to minors has nothing to do with whether its child porn or not. If these images are not being used in an article, any claim that they are being used for educational purposes is void. And educational purposes *is* our main defense. pschemp | talk 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but it isn't at all clear that we could be sued for that anyways. Again, if you think this is an issue you should probably bug Brad, but it isn't at all clear to me why we should speculate about legal issues and delete on that basis (if there is an actual legal issue this should be speedily deleted). JoshuaZ 04:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We delete images on the basis of potential leagal issues all the time. That just happens to be copyright. The last time I bugged Brad, PublicgirlUK's images ended up deleted. Don't see the point in taking such risks though, we don't do it with copyright issues, why would we do it with this? pschemp | talk 04:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We do it with copyrights because a) if we didn't we'd potentially have lots of big nasty corporations after us b) we want our own GFDL copyright to be respected and we'll look like hypocrites if we insist on ours but don't bother with other peoples. As to PGUK, those were deleted with (as I understand it) almost no input from Brad. I was certainly involved in that and don't recall anyone saying that Brad recommended removal. Could you point me to that? (Also, that's an interesting point if accurate because those images were in fact used in an arguably educational way, these seem to be there for shock value more than anything else). JoshuaZ 04:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't see anything because I sent personal email before the public fracas hit and Jimbo pontificated first. And yes, those were arguably educational, but many of these aren't (not being used anywhere makes it hard to argue they are educational), making it even more obvious we shouldn't be leaving ourselves open to legal issues. i have no issue with ones currently being used. pschemp | talk 04:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, in that case subject to that I suggest you send another email to Brad. Presumably whether or not there are any legal concerns should be a major deciding factor. JoshuaZ 06:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP orphans should go to WP:IFD; commons images without potential to commons:COM:AFD, not Miscellany for deletion. This debate is about the gallery of non-orphan images, not the images themselves. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep does not appear to violate user page policy in any reasonable interpretation. i'm not clear on how this is a misuse of server space; as others have noted, most of these are at commons and/or are used in articles. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 03:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The user appears to be gaming the system (WP:POINT).  Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, and yes, users have wide latitude regarding what they can put on their pages, but how does this particular page contribute to the writing of an encyclopedia?  Who visits this page in an effort to obtain encyclopedic information?  If there were a useful and objective criteria for the inclusion of images in this gallery, such as "All images on Wikipedia containing nudity", or "All anatomy-related featured images", or "All images I have uploaded", then I wouldn't hesitate to vote to keep.  But it seems to me the only purpose of this gallery is to provoke people, or to provide a source of free masturbation material for which Wikipedia must foot the bandwidth bill. Yes, there are nude and even pornographic images on Wikipedia, but they're all presented in articles individually (or in small numbers) and in an encyclopedic context.  It's not the remit of an encyclopedia to gather a bunch of unrelated nude and pornographic images together in one place simply because it's possible to do so. —Psychonaut 04:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I might be convinced this wasn't wanking material if there were more penises included, but as its is, its onesidedness is already a form of censorship. A gallery meant to truly espouse the naked form would include more men ;) pschemp | talk 05:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If the user will make even the slightest attmpet to justify it's existance. Christ, just saying "This is intended as a refernce for articles (that deal with sex, sexuality, or its ilk) where images are needed," would be enough.  Any images where there is a reasonable concern that the person pictured has not given concent should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but that is outside the scope of this debate.  Wait, there's another justification, "To serve as an easy method to check for images that may violate individuals' privacy and/or copyright violation."  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 05:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Has anyone told him about this MfD? He may not have bothered to watch the page. Septentrionalis 05:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I take the point but that is manifestly not the point of the page. It says it is "Some of Wikipedia's greatest, coolest, sexiest and most iconic pictures" - i.e. it's basically intended as a porn gallery. Whatever the creator says now, is of little impact. The Land 08:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be to try to salvage something from this.  We're meant to be clever, writing and editing and doing janitorial work.  So what's the rush to delete instead of editing?  Or chatting to the user?  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * take a look at the guy's talk page. People have tried before. Result? lack of response. --Yaksha 10:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * His userpage says:
 * Some of Wikipedia's greatest, coolest, sexiest and most iconic pitcures, (please feel free to upload some pictures, on the condition they are not Free Use and that you have good taste) go to User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery. This gallery includes a synthesis of images that I am also working on, scoping for copyright and adding to articles so at the same time it is also a piece of my mark on Wikipedia.
 * Septentrionalis 19:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave bad enough alone and keep. Why should we go around deleting this collection? How does doing so serve the encyclopedia? Looking where these images are linked shows that it's not the only one of its kind. (Fair Use is a valid concern, but it doesn't need to come here; fair use images not used in articles go to IfD.) Septentrionalis 05:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The emphasis of the quote i took from WP:USER wasn't the "images which you are not free to use" part, but rather, the "Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.". How is that page anything to do with him as a Wikipedian? The individual makes it quite clear at the top that the page is to prove the point that "Wikipedia is not censored". userpage shouldn't be for "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," 


 * being pornographic is just a side point. The main point is that this page contains a gallary of hundreds of pictures, with no explaination why it exists other than the fact that it is a "gallary of beauty" and that it is allowed because "wikipedia is not censored". The page is screaming "hahahaha...look at this great collection i have, and it's all within the rules since wikipedia is not censored" statement.


 * Anyhow, someone should go and inform this guy that his page is being nominated for deletion, and let's hear what he has to say. I'm quite interested to see him explain how such a gallary is in any way related to him as a Wikipedian, and what purpose it serves except as a show-off gallary --Yaksha 06:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The existence of the gallery tells me something (unfavorable) about him as an editor; that he appears to be using it as a resource for the encyclopedia counterbalances this somewhat. I'll stay with Keep. Septentrionalis 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Wikipedia user space is not a place for galleries of images of naked women. WP:ENC. Whether the images are fair use or not is immaterial. It is also immaterial whether our policy explicitly says "you may not use your user page to build galleries of naked women". The Land 07:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (or, at least, radically prune) -- Such a huge image gallery should be pruned. He can provide a list of links to the Wikicommon images if he'd like, but having such a huge gallery is a considerable drain on Wikipedia's resources every time someone views that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banaticus (talk • contribs)


 * Delete "Wikipedia is not a porn gallery" The "not censored" policy was for encyclopaedic purposes, this gallery surves no encyclopaedic purpose, it's a porn gallery.--Konst.able 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The creator of the page has been notified of the discussion. As it stands, the opinions stated so far are 6 Keep, 2 Keep page but remove those which one way or another are not suitable or required in the user's own page, 6 Delete, and 3 Strong Delete. For what little it might be worth, if the final decision is to keep the page but remove those which are not the page creator's own work, I would be willing to assist in the effort. Badbilltucker 13:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment a number of folks have commented about the total size of the page, or the number of pictures, but without any precise figures. The total size is approximately 2.3 MB, and there are 266 images. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - "Some of Wikipedia's greatest, coolest, sexiest and most iconic pictures" is the user's explanation, and if that is their opinion, that is fine with me. The user is using the page to inform us about their tastes, and about a selection of images that are on Wikimedia projects.  Some images are nude, and some are close-up, but clicking on any image links you to the upload page, and then on to the projects where it is used.  It is a very personal, visual and eclectic portal into Wikimedia that, if your tastes overlap with Kingstonjr's, you can use to find images for your Wikimedia project.  The only hardcore images are educational line drawings.  So, I don't think it is breaking any Wikimedia rules or Wikipedia guidelines.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because this gallery doesn't "technically" break several rules does not mean it has a place on wikipedia. The fact is that this gallery does not serve to further the goals and interests of the wikimedia foundation.  If the user truly wanted to inform us about his or her tastes, it could be done in a different manner.  Simply posting a bunch of pictures is not the the best way to communicate who you are, nor is it the apparent purpose of this user.  Oh, and my vote is delete.  Beatdown 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Usually I fall firmly on the side of free speech. Just last week I defended a discussion of John Holmes's penis size at his biography.  Yet the difference between that and this is context.  Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a free web host.  This user refuses to provide so much as a pretext for encyclopedic aims.  The page does look like an exercise in WP:POINT to challenge and exploit the limits of Wikipedia's anti-censorship practices.  The issue for me isn't so much the prurient interest as the use of server space.  Durova  14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I enjoy this gallery as much as the next fellow, but honestly, no encyclopedic value. The argument about what Commons does is not relevant. different projects have different policies. Delete this and all such similar ones. Besides I have better pics anyway. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Goes beyond the scope of our project. This isn't about being prudish (check my record on issues on WP on censorship if you don't believe me), it's simply about keeping user pages content roughly focused on the project. We're not a free web host. --Improv 17:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, for the reasons mentioned above by Brenneman & the discussion thread he started. I'm concerned on one hand that Kingstonjr has a link on his User page promoting this gallery obviously for "entertainment" purposes & has failed to respond to requests explaining the purpose of this page. (His talk page shows a long history of questions about this page.) On the other, I worry that the effort involved in deleting this page might not become a time sink for a number of Admins whose efforts could be more appreciated elsewhere. If deleted, I'm sure this page could be recreated with a minimum of effort; if not deleted, I expect that someone will re-list for deletion -- or even cite WP:IAR & delete it, which will lead to further controversy. -- llywrch 19:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Very nice, like two shaved horse bladders wa wa weh wa! - Lapinmies 19:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, and this is not a joke, feel free to add your "keep" once you figure out what to say.--Konst.able 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pointless. If you want to show your taste, go to myspace.com, not a bloody encylopedia. --A.Garnet 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is someone flagrantly trying to play duck and goose with the system and rules. Yes, WP may not be censored but it's not a wretched porn website either. Remember why Publicgirluk got indefblocked, anyone? Moreschi 14:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not violate WP:USER and please remember Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. Just because you don't want to see explicit images in Wikipedia is does not mean they should be removed. If we were to remove images, pages or other content every time a group of people feels "it does not belong" or feels offended Wikipedia would have not that many articles. Finally this is in userspace, which does cut useres quite some additional slack. Charon X /talk 15:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Under WP:NOT it very specifically says: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content". This is no article, nor is there any context here.  This is nothing more than a porn gallery.--Konst.able 01:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - is anyone else using up to 2.3 meg on their userpage, though. Beyond the issue of the probably pornographic content, this userpage is three times as big as the William Butler Yeats article, which is one of our few featured articles (and the first one I pulled up to compare with). Should we say that every user can exploit wikipedia's resources in this rather self-serving way?  If we do, then I think we can all expect real delays in getting any file to come up from this day forward. Badbilltucker 17:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Badbilltucker, if you look further up in this discussion you might see that the wide majority of images on the page were not uploaded by Kingstonjr, but by others. Since he only included them in his page I kinda doubt that this increased the load or disc space usage of the server in any notable way (unless the server creates copies of every image for every inclusion, which would be extremely dumb and inefficient) And since I doubt that this page is heavily trafficed (right now more because dozends of users want to know what all the buzz is about) it should add far less load - on average - to the server than a high-traffic article like George W. Bush. So both your claims that "he uses up our valuable space" and "he uses up our cpu time" that he exploits wikipedia resources in a self-serving way are in fact, not true. So, before you accuse other users that they "exploit wikipedia's resources in this rather self-serving way", get your facts straight first. Charon X /talk 21:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Charon X also might wish to pay some attention to the facts of what others have said before making misleading, and factually inaccurate, statements like the ones above regarding the statements of others. I spoke of the length of the page and allowing users to have a subpage which is three times as long as the first feature article I pulled up, and how it would be a drain on resources if this were allowed to be generalized. I never even mentioned the user per se. CharonX's misquoted statements that I said "he" are also both factually unsupportable, if not deliberately and willfully misleading. And, if, as CharonX states, that the majority of the images were uploaded by others, then that would indicate that the page has enough traffic for others to be aware of it and seek to add their own pictures, which is a good indication, if not absolute proof, that the traffic to this page is at least substantial. I would suggest that CharonX actually respond to the substance of arguments, rather than indulge in Wikilawyering, which, in this case, helps to support one of the arguments s/he opposes, rather than weakening it. And to compare a userpage to the article about the one of the most prominent people in the world today, the sitting President, is such a patent and absurd stretch to try to defend a position by any means necessary that I really think it does more to weaken your argument than strengthen it. Badbilltucker 14:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is always nice to be accused of Wikilawyering. So you say I summed up your arguments incorrectly? I felt that those parts summed up the "Should we say that every user can exploit wikipedia's resources in this rather self-serving way" bit quite nicely. But I I'll change them to reflect your original wording. As for your argument that, if others uploaded those images, then they must generate lots of traffic and that thus this page must be deleted, I find myself in a bind. Assuming that he uploaded them himself he has done bad because he onbviously exploited the server space of Wikipedia. Assuming he merely collected already uploaded images he exploited Wikipedia's bandwith. Thus, to have a non-exploiting image collection he would have to have both uploaded the images himself, and not uploaded the images himself - which is kinda impossible. And by pointing out to the George W. Bush article I merely wanted to show that there are big articles that have alot of more traffic that this page( and wikipedia does not seem to crumble because of it). But let's settle this in a professional manner - is there a developer here that can affirm or confute that this userpage has a significant negative impact on Wikipedia's stability or performance? Charon X /talk 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "significant negative impact on Wikipedia's stability or performance" no, i doubt any single page is going to have a significant impact on wikipedia's stability. But that's not the point. The point about the page wasting resources is that if every other Wikipedian decided to make a personal gallary of some kind, a few hundred pictures of their choice, on a user subpage. And if every one of them gets 3000 views a day? Yes, high end articles like George W. Bush get more views, but they're supposed to, wikipedia is an enecyclopedia, not a social networking service. Articles should get more views than userpages. So when a userpage is getting less views than only about the top 5000 articles (on an encyclopedia with more than a million articles), and shows no signs of being helpful to the encyclopedia...it seems like a sure sign of using wikipedia as a freehost/social-networking service rather than an encyclopedia building community. -- `/aksha 23:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment hmm, if you take a look at page view statistics (here, User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery is the second most visited user page with about 3 thousand odd views per day. --Yaksha 00:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - It also comes in as the 570th most visited page in all of wikipedia (article, userspace, and wikipediaspace) [here], roughly one out of every 5000 hits, pretty good for a user page in a site with over 1.4 million articles, not counting wikipediaspace and userspace pages. Badbilltucker 16:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You should add that the August tracks no pages at all, and that September tracks a total of three pages - one might say that this page was the second-least visited userpage in September. Hmmmm. Charon X /talk 12:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment hmm...i have to admit i didn't look that far. But i still have a sneaky feeling 3 thousand page views for a user page (and not even a user page, but a user subpage) is abnormally high. Especially when you compare it to the kind of view numbers that statistics tool is giving for articles in the main space (the stats tool shows about 600 mainspace articles with more than 3 thousand views a day...so the raw number of 3000+ views/day is still quite high). -- `/aksha 13:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and revisit other pages of similar intention mentioned above (too late to add them to this MFD, in my opinion). It's against the spirit of what we do to wave this in people's face as a "look at the boobies, but it's legal!", and previous attempts at discussing rationally with this user have gotten nowhere. -- nae'blis 22:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Users trying to get this deleted are being dictatorial and are trying to enforce their conservative preferences upon everyone.--Quaint Obelisk 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User's second edit. The Land 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see you are great with math skills.--Quaint Obelisk 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User's third edit. =P The reason the Land noted this was because editors who involve themselves in AFD in their first few edits tend to be sockpuppets. Hyenaste (tell) 17:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Current totals: 8 (9 including the one crossed out) Keep, 2 to Keep page but remove some images, including fair use images, 15 Delete, and 3 Strong Delete. Duplicate indications of opinion are not recorded. Badbilltucker 17:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting facts, but please remember this is not about the number of Keeps vs. number of Deletes, but about consensus - which I fail to see here. Charon X /talk 18:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No indication to the contrary was expressed or implied, and I dare think that perhaps CharonX may protest too much. However, considering that at least one person had seemingly expressed an opinion twice, I decided to clarify the opinions numerically, listing each person only once. Badbilltucker 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I merely stated that the vote counting appoach is not really feasible on convoluted topics. I think it is good that you pointed out that one or two persons "voted" twice and clarified the situation - maybe we could add a note below the 2nd "vote" (and perhaps strike it out?). Charon X /talk 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Kingston's response


 * Needless to say Strongest of all Keeps! Hello fellow wikipedians, when it comes to controversy concerning my user page and now my Work Gallery I am a veteran, it is now time for me to speak up concerning this. Having already decided on the Administrators discussion board to keep my gallery this debate seems rather pointless, nevertheless, I shall present my case. For the sake of clarity which i believe this case needs I have displayed my reasons in bullet points:
 * The name of my gallery suggests that this is work related, its existance is essential to my and many more users work on wikipedia and representative of expression on wikipedia. The images feature her truly are as I have stated a synthesis of images relating to a topic that I wish to dedicate my efforts to on wikipedia, these are aspects of wikipedia that I am interested in. *My gallery is fighting exactly what several users, and a few who have commented here, this is against censorship. My gallery is always the most up-to-date form of this, far superior in fact to even the equivilent WikiProject- Wikipedians against censorship Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery.
 * With 11 pages linking to my gallery it is clear that the gallery is well respected on wikipedia, and the effort appreciated whilst also aiding many wikipedians.
 * I find it especially peculiar why this page is being targeted, most likely per the reason above. Nevertheless, pages such as:
 * User:Markaci
 * User:Cyde
 * User:Ac1983fan
 * User:Ewlyahoocom

Depict similair content, if not identical.
 * My pages has been critisised due to its use of unfree images, with images of such a naure there is always the risk of unfree images being uploaded. Once more my gallery aids wikipedia, dedicated to this cause I hunt down these images if you like, and am able to display these images, to all wikipedians with more experiance than I on the status of images. This way the rate at which images can be found and deleted if violating the terms is greatly increased.
 * The images are present for peopple looking for particular images, to suit their desired edit to a article may find or[haned images present on my page.

There exist many more advantages to this gallery, which we may discover once it is gone. I believe though that you, capable wikipedians will be able to make the right decision to keep this gallery, or otherwise co-operate in improving the gallery.

Thank you,

KingstonJr 18:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The most recent discussion cited by User:Kingstonjr is located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140. I read through the discussion, and saw nothing to indicate that the decision to keep the gallery which he refers to in his comment was ever in fact reached. And I note that the most recent comment in the linked-to discussion was from October 6, 2006, indicating that this was the most recent discussion. I believe that the creator of the gallery may be letting his enthusiasm for his own work cloud his perceptions of the fact of the other discussion. Badbilltucker 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment We're not targetting your (kingstonjr)'s gallary in particular - if it is decided to delete this page, then no doubt the other pages you listed will follow suite if they contain similar material. Being linked to doesn't make something good. You claim your gallary aids wikipedia, i'd like to see you provide an example or two (as in specific cases) of your gallary actually doing any good If your gallary is indeed "essential

to my and many more users work on wikipedia", then surely you can dig out some evidence of your gallary being useful to "work on wikipedia"? -- `/aksha 23:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Konstable. As quoted from WP:NOT, "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content. Tell me...how is this even relevant? Someone wants to look at some porn (and a random picture of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) at work, and so they made a separate Wikipedia userpage. Now, I'm all for userpage privelages, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I think this is where it should stop. We don't need user sub-pages with porn. -- Nish kid 64 22:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I read this page. What a long discussion! I do not still understand this discussion. KingstonJr put in this page a selection of pics from Wikipedia Commons. The question thus is to know if these pics have to stay in Wikipedia Commons. If it is necessary to remove them, then it would have of the being made for a long time. Question: why Wikipedia Commons Administrators have kept these pics for a long time ? Otherwise, for what reasons do we have to blame KingstonJr? What about these pages: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Erotic, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nudity, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Penis. Is it necessary to delete it also? If the answer is yes, then there are really many pages to be deleted. Notice that KingstonJr is not concerned by this issue. Last comment: The argument proposed by Badbilltucker related to the space memory occupied by this page on the Wikipedia server is wrong. The pics are uploaded once on the Wikipedia server in US. When you make references to the Wikipedia Commons pics, you make only the link towards this server. You do not copy out the pics. SEwiki 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as I had no answer to this comment:
 * Comment: I am grateful to the above poster for correcting my mistake. I regret to say that I am not really an expert on internet matters. I also note that User:SEwiki has not yet actually indicated an opinion on the keeping or deletion of the page itself, comments about other pages notwithstanding. Badbilltucker 15:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read again my previous comment. My opinion is clearly defined.SEwiki 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are misunderstanding the point of the debate completely. The issue of whether the pictures are okay to stay uploaded is a completely different matter, actually...it's not an issue at all, because we're not debating about the pictures themselves. The issue is whether it's okay to have a userpage with hundreds of pictures that seems to serve no purpose except to be a porn gallary. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Penis is fine because it's serving to help commons by helping to group together all similar images of that category. His userpage isn't (or there is no evidence of) serving to help wikipedia or any other project. It's a porn gallary and that's it. -- `/aksha 08:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: No! I indeed understand the debate. I persist in thinking that the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Penis is a real porn gallery. Contrary to your explanation I don't see any encyclopedia interest in this page. This page seems to me really much more porn than User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery. That's my point of view. However I agree that your point of view may be different. Here is one of the issues. SEwiki 12:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that there may be other pages out there which might be subject to the same sort of discussion as the page under question. I certainly haven't check out the other pages referenced yet. I note that another editor has already indicated above that there may well be a discussion of other pages referenced in this discussion upon the close of this discussion, once we know the results of it. Therefore, I strongly urge all parties who make comments in this section, whatever their opinions on other pages might be, to indicate what their opinion is on the subject of this discussion, the page under question itself. The decision made here will almost certainly be pivotal in assisting editors whether to propose the other referenced pages for deletion or not. Badbilltucker 15:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I confirm that the debate is not clear. So, we have to keep the page at the moment as explained above. SEwiki 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Or, alternatively, created a general RfC on the possible deletion or modification of this page and all the other pages which have been mentioned in this discussion, and just suspend the decision here until a final decision on this page, and the other pages, is reached there. One point which is I believe pivotal is whether the pages should contain fair use or other images which are readily available elsewhere or whether they should simply contain those images which, for whatever reason, are not readily available elsewhere. Unfortunately, the creator of this userpage does not seem to be particularly interested in ensuring his personal userpage conforms to wikipedia standards. Personally, I would have no objection to a page containing only images which are, for whatever reason, not readily available elsewhere, are actually permitted in userspace, and which might be required for some variety of "work" on wikipedia. However, the page as currently structured contains a number of fair use images which are specifically not allowed on userpages. Badbilltucker 22:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment SEwiki, you're still misinterpreting the point here. The difference between User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Penis is like the difference between pictures of naked body parts on Penis and pictures of naked body parts on Tree. The former is okay because it is relavent and appropriate, the latter would not be. I suppose i should clarify that when i say "User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery is just a porn gallary", i'm meaning "User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery is just a porn gallary that serves no purpose to wikipedia". That's the point. It's the fact that it is a gallary of a few hundred pictures that serves no encyclopedic purpose that's the problem. The fact that the gallary happens to be porn only adds oil to the fire (and leading people like me to believe he's gaming the system). But the root of the problem lies in the fact that he's using his userpage on wikipedia to host a personal gallary for show-off-ness, and doesn't want to or can't provide any evidence of how that gallary is helping him or any other editor in their work in wikipedia. Which is why i voted delete. Now, the fact that some of those pictures are fair use and therefore need to go is another matter. And if the pictures need to go for copyright reasons, they will go whether we agree for the subpage to be deleted or kept. --`/aksha 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep while the criteria to delete such a page are not clear. Some of you are requested for deleting the User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery as many images are not currently being used on Wikipedia. That’s exactly the argument given above by User:Pschemp: "I think if an image isn't currently being used on wikipedia, it has no place in the gallery." Do you know that there are hundreds of such galleries on Wikipedia? For example, the User:Pschemp/Gallery itself (that's not a joke!) contains many images not used on Wikipedia (for example Image:TurkishVansexample3.jpg, Image:Orientalshorthairs.jpg, Image:Newtownhallhannover.jpg, Image:Wheel2.jpg, Image:Tradingpostguy.JPG, Image:Pancakestar2.png, Image:Centaurea americana.jpg). So before discussing about deleting the User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery, we have to define clearly the Wikipedia rules. Safedom 08:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's wrong to think that Wikipedia has rules that cover every single situation. We don't. The policies that most apply are WP:ENC, WP:NOT, and {{WP:USER]], none of which can cover this exact situation becasue it hasn't arisen before. The Land 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) There is a big difference between Pschemp's gallery and Kingstonjr's gallery. One has cats, the other has vaginas.  As I have already mentioned above, WP:NOT says pornographic images are acceptable only where they have encyclopaedic benefit.  This does not.  I agree this is not a crystal clear reason for deleting it, but I don't believe in having thick layers of bureaucratic rules for anything to get done.  "No clear rules exist to define this" is no excuse to not do something.--Konst.able 08:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment not to mention, Pschemp's gallery is relevant to his/her work on wikipedia. "My favorite self made pictures in articles here (the rest of my pictures can be seen at my gallery)" assuming Pschem is not lying, the gallery is displaying self-created pictures which this user has contributed to wikipedia articles. But difference. --`/aksha 09:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the Pschemp's gallery was not the right example. However, as there are many hundreds of such user_gallery, I'm not sure that your criteria are so clear to delete or not this user-gallery rather than another. Anyway I think that many pages related to sex are more pornographic that the User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery and many of these pages are non encyclopedic and useless. That's always a question of criteria. Safedom 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment there are other such useless gallaries with porn? really...well, i never knew about it. I'm sure many other people who don't look at user porn gallaries would not know about it either. So if you do know about it, then maybe it would be a good idea for you to link to them or tell us where they are. So the rest of us can take a look at it. --`/aksha 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - per the fact that Wikipedia is not MySpace - we allow user subpages to an extent but this pretty much looks like an MySpace type gallery. As for the nature of the images, WP is not censored but still... a better name would be nice sort of a heads up if one was browsing at work... -- Tawker 08:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - Delete per CSD U3 - I just made it so I won't delete it per it but it's as obvious as all. The images are FairUse and not in an article hence its a speedy -- Tawker 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I totally agree that most of the user_galleries are used as MySpace. But there are hundreds of such pages. Do we have now to delete these pages ? The answer is obviously NO. So we have to define the criteria to allow or not a user_gallery to be or not MySpace. Safedom 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is the answer obviously NO? Why is the answer no? And why is the answer obvious at all? If the answer was at all obvious, i doubt this large debate regarding Kingstonjr's gallary would exist. I for one, do not think the answer is NO. If wikipedia allowed advertising, for example, we would have hundreds...no, thousands of advertising articles. And yet we do not. There must have been hundreds of hoax articles and articles about non-notable things, and yet they have all been deleted. Why? Because we agree it is the right thing to do. Just because there are hundreds of such pages, it doesn't make them valid. If something is deemed wrong, then it should go regardless of how many articles it covers. As for the criteria, a simple "Picture gallaries which so no sign of being helpful or related to a user's wikipedia work should be deleted" would work. In fact, i believe that's already a guildine. The userpage guildline does say userpages which have no relavance to wikipedia shouldn't exist. --`/aksha 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I was speaking about all the user_galleries pages. My question was "Do we have now to delete these pages". My answer was "NO" as we are not going to delete all the user_galleries pages. That's obvious at all. Maybe we have to delete part of these pages, so we have to define the criteria for deletion. I know Wikipedia and I know many articles or links are deleted a few minutes only after being written. My comment was only related to the criteria used for deleting user_galleries pages. That's my concern. Safedom 11:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "My answer was "NO" as we are not going to delete all the user_galleries pages. That's obvious at all.", but that's the point. Your statement is NOT obvious at all. Don't expect everyone else to automatically agree on your conclusions, or what you consider to be obvious when you give no reasons. I ask, why can't we just delete all the user gallaries pages? If they are being used as myspace. You said "I totally agree that most of the user_galleries are used as MySpace. But there are hundreds of such pages. Do we have now to delete these pages ? The answer is obviously NO." So what if there are hundreds of such pages? If they are being used as MySpace, then something needs to be done about it. And deletion is a very valid possibility, unless you'd like to explain why it isn't. Wikipedia shouldn't be used like a free hosting gallary, that much is clear. Now how to define what a myspace-style gallary is, that may be a problem. But just because there is a problem, it doesn't mean the solution is  obviously to do nothing about it. --`/aksha 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You are right! You are explaining exactly what I try to explain: It's obviously not possible to delete ALL the user_galleries pages. We have to find criteria to delete only the Wikipedia inappropriate pages. Safedom 07:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, why not just make another CSD criteria "Attemps to game the system and myspace like pages that serve no other purpose - makes life a lot simpler :) -- Tawker 17:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--A. B. 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; inappropriate waste of server space and resources for no benefit of the encyclopedia. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing inappropriate about galleries. Especially ones that are addendum to user pages. -- Freemarket 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Right now, it seems to be at least 60% to delete, which is the bottom of the range of what is required to delete when there is no consensus. However, there are the additional issues of the creator of this page clearly using language which leads one to think that he is intentionally gaming the system, the extraordinary length of the page, and the user's total failure to remove images which are not permitted in userspace. If the end of the debate reveals no consensus, I suggest that it be continued, with all the other pages which have been referenced so far, in a more generalized RfC. I would be willing to start it myself upon the closing of this discussion if it is indicated to me that such is in fact possible under these circumstances. Badbilltucker 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I fully support that idea.  It is obvious from the discussion this issue has generated that the way in which some user pages have been abused needs to be dealt with. Beatdown 12:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment some people have mentioned that his gallary contains fair use images. can we at least agree in asking him to remove the FU images? WP:USER makes it quite clear and specific that FU imagines do NOT go into userpages. --`/aksha 05:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not why we're here; this is a deletion discussion. Removal of fair use images from a user page gallery is completely independent and can be done right away. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 07:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - However, I believe that it is a valid point against this page that the user does nothing to eliminate fair use images, as per wikipedia guidelines, but also by so doing seems to at least passively encourage others to add images to his gallery. Many of these images cannot be included within such a page as per wikipedia policies. This can reasonably be seen as compounding efforts to game the system, itself a violation of wikipedia policies. I am attempting to create an RfC regarding this issue. So far as I can determine, this has to be created as an RfC regarding Kingstonjr himself. Any assistance in how to define the nature of the request and the reason for the request being made are more than welcome, either at my userpage or below. Badbilltucker 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This kind of stuff should at least be on commons if anywhere. Voice -of- All  17:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or prune back to just a few images this is a straightforward delete muddied by the issue of censorship. I counted 255 images. If this were a collection of jet fighter or Harley-Davidson photos, I think this would be a much shorter discussion with a consensus to delete if the user would not trim it back to a handful of photos. Here are the policies and guidelines; if we don't like them we should change them, but until then, this deletion process should note:
 * WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site"
 * In particular, note Kingstonjr's own comments: "please feel free to upload some pictures"
 * WP:NOT: "Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."
 * WP:NOT: "If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia."
 * WP:NOT: "Mere Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles."
 * WP:NOT: "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content"
 * Comment: 255 photos seems like overkill for any valid point this user page might be trying to make
 * WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech."
 * WP:NOT: "The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism."
 * WP:USER: "Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian"
 * WP:USER: "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia."
 * WP:POINT: "Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy"
 * Given how many policies and guidelines Kingstonjr is still violating above, it's arguable how well he really is gaming the system. "Testing the limits of anarchism" is probably a better description.
 * 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.