Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was WP:AVALANCHE keep, yet again. I was not happy with the MfD being reopened and labelled as being partisan in this debate (I'm not; I just thought that people saying it'd bring Wikipedia into disrepute were overreacting). Thusly, I resolved to myself that if, after reopening, there was five consecutive keeps, I would re-close it. This has been done. I doubt that this MfD, with the current trend, will end with anything else than a "keep" closure, so I'm just cutting short four more days of drama. If you disagree, take it to DRV. Sceptre (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster
Are the image and userboxes fitting for a userpage on en.Wikipedia? -- Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The image is mild. And we shouldn't be in the business of acting as the morality police anyway.  Different people from different cultures and backgrounds will have different opinions about what is appropriate.  We certainly shouldn't be catering to the lowest common denominator.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the image is concerned User_page applies. The page seems to be made with the particular intend to cause disruption by the use of the image and as such should either be fixed or deleted if the user is not prepared to fix it. Agathoclea (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:USER..Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including ... likes and dislikes... and You might want to add quotations that you like, or a picture.... The picture, the locus of this matter, is held at Commons under an open license and is therefore available for use throughout Wikipedia spaces. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is just about the most absurd discussion I have ever seen on wikipedia, and that's saying a very great deal. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove the image and write a prohibition into the UP guideline. Wikipedia is not censored, but I understand that is meant to apply to articles and images that contribute to the understanding of the same. –xeno talk 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A prohibition on what? Where do we draw the line? Is it just nipples and genitalia? What about excessive cleavage or legs? Side boob? Exposed ankles? -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense should be enough here. Obviously in the present case, it has failed. –xeno talk 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're clearly right, as this MfD would not have been started otherwise. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See, my common sense says that an innocuous image that isn't being used with intent to disrupt should just be left well enough alone and that pointless wikidrama should be avoided. Yours seems to be that we should remove certain images based on very vague subjective criteria.  Doesn't seem like there's much overlap there.  Which is why subjective evaluations like "common sense" probably don't belong in any policy. -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm presently of the opinion that it's now being kept there disruptively as the user has refused a polite request to include a link directly to his talk page in his signature. –xeno talk 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I'm still not clear what this prohibition you want written into policy looks like. -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What policy requires the editor to include a link directly to his talk page in his signature? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Chunky Rice: I'm apparently not very good at writing guidelines. But something about "no nude images in userspace".
 * @Malleus: Wikilawyering be damned, it's the courteous thing to do. I don't force people to learn that I'm an avid Fringe fan to come talk to me. The user is being a right dick, plain and simple. Of course, I know that you feel we're allowed to be dicks, and you're free to your opinion. –xeno talk 14:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I know that you feel we're allowed to be dicks." You know nothing of the sort, so please at least make an attempt to keep the discussion rational, without any further unnecessary personal remarks. --Malleus
 * How would your guideline affect this user page: User:Scotwriter?-Chunky Rice (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Common sense would hopefully prevail. –xeno talk 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about common sense. But what I see is that you want this to apply to some images but not others, but without any specific criteria to separate the two.  You're basically inducting WP:IDONTLIKEIT into policy.  Which seems like a terrible, terrible idea to me. -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "No nudity in userspace" is a rule that can be ignored just like all others, if someone wants to display an historical work of art in a gallery of images that is below the fold and most likely won't be seen by many (it certainly took me a couple minutes to find out what you were talking about). The present case is far from it. I'm unwatching this page now, feel free to take this up on my user talk if you want to discuss further (the link to which is helpfully provided &rarr; –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any policy that requires liberal use of WP:IAR to be workable is a bad one. -Chunky Rice (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The issue isn't what offends you or me or someone like us. The issue is whether or not there's a reasonable expectation that it will offend any users in general. That's indisputable, of course it will. We can agree that it shouldn't but for now nude pictures do offend people. This isn't your page to do with what you will. This is a serious project that depends on a collaborative environment that can be worked on without restrictions. There is no free speech on Wikipedia. RxS (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that all images that might offend should be deleted, or just the ones that you don't like? What about this one, for instance? Are you offended by its use of the word "cunt"? As an ex Roman Catholic with vivid personal memories of the sectarian violence prevalent in western Scotland I find this image to be far more offensive than the subject of this MfD. Yet I have not argued for its deletion, and would never argue for its deletion, even from the user page of an editor proud to be a member of the order. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about deleting an image, so no. But to go a little further if there's not a reasonable expectation that a certain type of image will be present on a page that someone visits we should be conservative about the type of image that's placed there. In other words, if I visit the breast page it's my own fault if I'm offended by a picture of a breast. If I click on a userpage and there's something offensive there that's our fault.
 * And to think this is about deleting something that I don't like shows you've missed the point. It's not about whether you or I don't like it. It about whether or not there's a reasonable expectation that it will offend any users in general. And if there are certain pictures that are more offensive in inappropriate places then we need to fix that also. RxS (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any user? So if there's one user in all of Wikipedia that might find an image on an userpage offensive, it should be removed?  That seems overbroad.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not any one user, of course not. But nudity is offensive to many people world wide. It just is, right or wrong. This is a global project and people need to understand that. RxS (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and indef block user. This set of images/userboxes are a waste of time, and are deliberately provocative. There's plenty of precedent. AKAF (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What policy has the editor breached that might justify the imposition of an indefinite block? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad we don't just hand out the block button to just anyone. Chillum  14:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I might agree with you on the delete front, there's no reason to indef block here, and to do so would be wrong. Talk Islander 14:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The way the image is used is demonstrate my sense of humour, personal likes/dislikes etc. The image is not explicit, tasteless, used in a sexual manner for purposes of titillation. It was even edited from the orginal to remove naked breasts so as to reduce the 'strength' of it. Taken as a whole page it sums up my takes on life also the likely response and manner of any responses I may give. Many users like to use self-serving and self-congratulatory BS, I choose to use this method. It is not used as a "homepage" as it has been described by others. It is being used as a user page should be used, to describe me. As regards the "deliberately causing offence". That is total rubbish. Anyone who is offended by this tame image and webpage has at some time in their life decided for one reason or another to be offended by nudity or vulgarity. That is their choice, not mine. In any case anyone with such a low threshold of being offended has far bigger problems than that caused by this web page. As has been mentioned, do we have to reduce what we show to the lowest common denominator that polictical correctness requires? There will always be someone somewhere who will be offended by anything. As far as the wiki-lawyering goes this user page does not directly breech any wikipedia rules. If one doesn't want images of this type to be shown then simply don't allow them on commons, as it is they are allowed and there is no specific rule that says it can't be used on a user page, likewise there is no rule that personal comment can't be used on a user page. And surprisingly enough "userboxes" are designed to be used on user pages. After 6 years of voluntary contributions to this project the least that should be offered is latitude for personal expression on one's own user page. -- Web H amster  14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just about being offended (I'm not), but some users (like me) may not want this image popping up unexpectedly (and popping up has a double-meaning here). Had you been courteous and simply put a link directly to your talk page in your signature, we probably wouldn't be here - as then users would only see the image if they deliberately went to your user page and caveat emptor would apply. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  14:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah so calling someone a "dick" isn't meant to cause offence then? Ain't hypocrisy a wonderful thing eh? As per the above though, the simple answer is that one can't please everyone all the time... so I don't even try.-- Web H amster  14:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I call it like it is, and again, "causing offense" isn't why I think the image should be removed. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the real reason you want it removed is because you feel the need to act like a dick over nothing. -- Web H amster  14:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to your opinion. Unwatching the page now, feel free to take this up on my user talk if you want to discuss further (the link to which is helpfully provided &rarr; –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Anything can be provocative to anyone. If we use this as judgment, we must disallow 90% of all userpages. Userboxes that proclaim atheism may be offensive to religious people, text that proclaims conservatism may be offensive to liberals, heck, even saying you are an inclusionist might be offensive to some deletionists. That's just the world. But we should not try to please everyone who is easily offended. Some people like to proclaim that WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to articles, but that's the wrong view on the issue. "Wikipedia is not censored" applies to the whole project for a simple reasoning: Yes, we admit that there is content in this project that will be offensive to certain groups and noone forces them to view it. But everyone knows that they might come across this material when browsing this site and they also know that they must accept this "risk" so to speak because that is one of the things Wikipedia is built on. There is no reason to start censoring userspace just because that is another namespace. You have to reckon that you will come across things you do not like in article namespace and the same applies to userspace. Unless anyone can find any policy that really says that userspace is in fact censored, there is no reason to assume that this is the case. No having "any image on your userpage that would bring the project into disrepute" is no such policy though, otherwise WP:NOTCENSORED would also bring the project into disrepute. And noone would really claim that. Regards  So Why  14:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Last I checked, Wikipedia isn't censored.  Flying Toaster  14:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Far worse is diplayed on billboards in public squares, adverts and articles in everyday magazines, even in the most Catholic and conservative countries. Do not see what the fuss is about. People who are shocked by this should travel and get a life. Giano (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A not unpleasing image. I sternly demand of myself You happen to be a heterosexual male. What if you were confronted with the homoerotic equivalent? And so, in the interest of inquiry and informed argument, I investigated further. &para; The entire image as displayed on Hamster's page -- at least as I view it -- is 150&times;182 pixels. I'm vaguely aware that there are female genitalia visible, maybe, sort of. These occupy a very small part of this image. Attired in white coat, spatula in hand, I have isolated them. Yes, I have derived a file that dispenses with the waxy surroundings to deliver the greatest percentage of genitalia per pixel that I could manage in a non-rotated rectangle. Being highly sexual (percentagewise), this image should not be presented here; instead I have placed it in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster/Naughty bit. If you are under the age of majority in your jurisdiction, easily shocked, or easily aroused, do not click that link. However, I can inform you that the image is 8&times;11 pixels. &para; And so, this troublesome element, which risks boners or apoplexy (or both) among millions of right-thinking Wikipedia users, is under 100 pixels. Compare that with, say, the 2728 (i.e. 31&times;88) pixels of the old "Netscape Now!" graphic. &para; Back to my question. Drearily heterosexual male that I am, I do find something unnerving about the sight of any dick other than my own. So what if I were confronted with an 8&times;11 pixel image of a dick? I can say with confidence: Nothing. No shock, and certainly no boner or apoplexy. I suggest that this image is not shocking other than to those who are keen to be shocked. &para; As for the sentiments expressed about the savior of New Orleans and Iraq, they seem to be mainstream, perhaps even majority (though Florida might manage to count otherwise). -- Hoary (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep some people are offended by anything these days, you simply can't please everyone.  Majorly  talk  16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Cheers, Jack Merridew
 * Keep obviously. Giano puts it perfectly. If you're seriously offended by this, I can only assume you've never turned on a television. – <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script;"> iride scent  16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hmm, what policy is he breaking? If it offends you, well, you must be leading a sheltered life. — R  2  16:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This MFD was a very bad idea. This was already discussed.  How will more of the same help anything?  Friday (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So far, I think it's helping a lot, by gathering the community's consensus as to whether the page is ok or untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Err.. did you not see the very long, not-very-useful discussions on this that already took place? Friday (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted links to them on the talk page of this MfD some time ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This MfD is a great idea. It allows us to come to a conclusion instead of just repeating ourselves at the noticeboards and various talk pages. This is how we decide if content should be removed from user pages or not so I can't see how it is a bad idea. It looks like this debate is going much the same way as the previous discussions, so this should settle it. Chillum  16:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * MFDs are for deciding whether to delete a page. The question here is on appropriate content.  Two different things.  This should just be closed soon as a keep- there is no point in rehashing the same debates.  Everyone who's been paying attention knows what the relevant issues are.  What we've got here is the online equivalent of a cheering football crowd.  Any relevant questions would be settled by rational discussion, not cheering.   Friday (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * MfDs decide if user page content is appropriate or not all the time. I see plenty of rational discussion going on here. Frankly I can't wait for this silly debate to finally be put to bed with the end of this MfD. Chillum  17:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimbo says the page should be speedy deleted. This project page is meant to gather community consensus on whether the page should be deleted. Are you saying editors asking for a "keep" aren't rational? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimbo says the page should be speedy deleted. So what? Let Jimbo start an MfD is he feels so strongly about it, not you. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave that diff only in answer to Friday's comment that "MFDs are for deciding whether to delete a page." Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep At best the image is borderline, and that depends on the personal tastes of the people viewing it. Boils down to a classic case of a made up moral hysteria. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 16:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, image is bland and inoffensive, used to enable other editors and readers to understand the political beliefs of an editor and thus enable editors and readers to apply their critical judgement to contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Though the attitude of the editor in question is rather combatative and doesn't seem to want to work in a collaborative fashion, which is rather irksome, the picture is hardly offensive or pornographic in nature (I've seen worse in celebrity mags, for crying out loud) and thus should be kept. Skinny87 (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've had a lovely set of tits on my page for eons without comment. Surely this can stand as well. Dekkappai (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are a lovely set of tits. Chillum  17:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've re-opened this MFD as it was closed by someone with an obvious bias. Just because a bunch of people without common sense have shown up to vote keep doesn't mean people with common sense won't show up further down the line to vote delete. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You should re-evaluate what common sense means. I don't think it is fair to say the majority of people's sense is not common sense. If anything the idea that the page should be kept is the most common sense, other opinions lacking the common basis with other users. It is not so much that they lack common sense, it is that they lack your sense or rather they don't share your opinion. This MfD has been re-opened, but it will still end with the same result because that is what consensus is. Chillum  19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no harm in letting it run. For all we know, the majority people who think nudity in userspace is OK edit on the weekend, and the majority of people who realize it's completely inappropriate only edit during the week. This hasn't even been open 24 hours. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Maybe the majority of people who realize it's harmless edit during the weekend, and the majority who think it's not OK edit during the week." Do you see what I (and you) did there? You used biased language in explaining your re-opening of this. DuncanHill (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's a good thing I'm not trying to make the final decision here. I realize I'm on a side here, and therefore I should stay out of the decision. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming I (and every other keep voter here) have no common sense is offensive and insulting. Way to go dragging the drama on.  Majorly  talk  19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your language is becoming intemperate xeno. I strongly suggest that you rein in any further efforts you may have in mind to insult those who disagree with you. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @majorly/malleus: yes, refactored. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay! More drama!  I'm always saying, if there's one thing Wikipedia needs more of, it's pointless drama.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Common sense" is not that which I believe it should be. Plus, common sense is relative; throwing yourself from a second story window does not display common sense, unless the building is an inferno and all other exits are blocked. Lastly, where is "common sense" referred to in policy? Consensus is as close as we get - and that is what is happening here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, consensus means "everyone agrees with you". When everyone disagrees with you, then "Wikipedia is not a vote". – <b style="font-family:Courier;"> iride scent </b> 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any "obvious bias" about keeping the image, I just find the "bringing the project into disrepute" argument spurious. Very spurious. Sceptre (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. To me it seems like two sides of the same coin. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily: I don't want George W. Bush to be put on trial for war crimes, but that doesn't mean I obviously love him to bits. Sceptre (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - We're not Conservapedia. Exxolon (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but just add a talk link to the sig. All of this could have been avoided with a little common sense. People have a right to communicate with an editor without surprises. Personally, what I think we need is a rule about the sigs, not a rule about the pictures. DGG (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have WP:SIG about sigs, and WebHamster's sig appears to comply (unlike that of at least one active admin, which has no links whatsoever). DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think DGG knows that and is saying a rule about keeping a link to the user's talk page in the sig might be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is fair enough and which I would support in the right venue. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I don't think the user page would have drawn much heed at all had there been a link to WebHamster's talk page in the custom signature. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, until two weeks ago my sig only linked to my userpage (old sig broken out of retirement for this post, to demonstrate), forcing anyone following the link in my sig to the video clip of two cats mating (complete with sound) on my userpage, and I didn't receive a single complaint. (And I think at least 75% of the people in this conversation managed to find their way to my talkpage at some point at least once, including you, Gwen.) –  iride scent 21:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 

(ec)*Keep I've been following the discussion over the last couple of days, but the climate of fear kept me from clicking through because I was on a lunch break at work. I don't know exactly what I expected, but I figured I'd at least be seeing something more at home on a Canadian five-cent coin. Now, having had a chance in the privacy and safety of my home to see the page, all I can ask is — really? Seriously? We're actually having this discussion? If my girlfriend had come up behind me while this was on my screen, she'd have asked where the rest of the picture was. This is a simple expression of the user's political beliefs, clever to some, juvenile to others. If you're offended, that's what the back button on your browser is for. I'd throw in my vote that I'd be prepared to support a requirement for having both user page and talk page links in everyone's signature, but that's a discussion for another place and another time. Mlaffs (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (EC) - page breaks no rules. However, to WebHamster: it is unfair of you to force any unsuspecting person who wishes to post to your talk page to go through this page first. Please have consideration for others and place a link to your talk page in your signature.  LadyofShalott  Weave  20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Persuasion is better than force for this type of thing.  Here's hoping WebHamster recognizes the thoughtful objections of people who nonetheless wouldn't force this off the page.  Durova Charge! 20:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The image is mild and wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of acting as the morality police anyway. Besides, if we "legislate" this form of expression away, what stops us from using this as a precedent for removing other things later? The old slippery slope argument. The original complainer was looking for an excuse to be offended, lets not give in to this sort of moralistic bullying. If you think it's offensive, don't look at it, it doesn't take much effort to click away from a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heironymous Rowe (talk • contribs)
 * Oops, sorry 'bout that, I'll sign this one tho, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2009 (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.