Wikipedia talk:Sexual content/Archive 1

kick off

I think this is overdue... looking forward to thoughts :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not look, to me, as though you received any sort of mandate at the Village Pump to propose this policy. While I understand being bold, this feels to me to be a bold step too far. Indeed it looks to me to be kite flying and worthy of a nomination, even one frowned upon, at MfD. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? WP:IMAGE and WP:IUP address all concerns already and far more strongly, then simply WP:NOT

So far, only a single rational argument for a specific guideline has been listed - Personality rights. This rationale has already been addressed by the writing of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights, which mandates that a high level of consent must be present. The reader is left to infer the other possible reasons for this motion, which are likely based on moral or personal grounds, which are highly subjective, and counter arguments easily found for. Furthermore, WP:IMAGE contains very clear guidelines that make it highly unlikely that potentially sexualised images would be used on an article for anything other than an appropriate subject, and WP:IUP also contributes towards this. And for any extreme problem images, MediaWiki:Bad image list exists. Although it has already been mentioned to the editor making this suggestion, it is worth once more also linking to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Censor offensive image. LinaMishima (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This rests to a large extent on the defintion of "sexualized"

Which is highly culturally dependent. Would a woman in a bikini be too sexualized for example? What about an image that is related to sex but not normally "sexualized" such as an image of a condom? In this sort of view would I be unable to have on my userpage a picture of Danica McKellar that was on commons? Does it matter if I've put it there because she's a good role model for girls or if I've put it there because she's hot? What if I've done it for both reasons? Does it matter if it is an image where she's got lots of cleavage or only a little bit? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

consensus! (the magic answer :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

and to go further josh - you're spot on that there are a ton of grey areas on this one, however the status quo seems to me to insist that some pretty dark hues are actually shiny white :-) - given the sheer volume of such imagery, I think it's also sensible to have a WP space area for the community as a whole to develop / codify 'best practice' for handling these images.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point - you clearly do not so much mean consensus, as bias, really. LinaMishima (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

no, no - I mean 'wiki consensus' - we're required to use it, I'd say :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And that consensus is, on cultural matters, to take the least restrictive route in order to allow a better encyclopaedia to result. How is your preference over this any different to the view held by some that the images of Muhammad should be removed from the article? LinaMishima (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

dunno really - I'll think about it.... I guess maybe I'm just sensing that there's something worth talking about here - that there's a middle ground between wanting to censor all 'dirty pics' and refusing to even discuss guidelines and policies, because we've utterly resolved the issue conceptually already... I'm well up for thinking more about it all though! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the edge case of the occasional dodgy userpage, is there even an issue here? Given you are the first serious supporter of such a concept in quite a while, I would argue that there is unlikely to be a underlying issue in need of WP:CREEP to address it. As such, I suggest you document why this matter is not properly covered by existing policy and hence this proposal is not creepage. LinaMishima (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly up for working a bit more on the policy - and will continue to think about the issues... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

how about this

If an image complements text in an article, we include it. Otherwise, we don't. --harej 03:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is what WP:IMAGE and WP:IUP already state :) LinaMishima (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

what do you think about this bit "Images of a sexual nature, which are hosted on our sister project, Wikimedia Commons, should also be removed from display on wikipedia outside of the article space. Feel free to use a hyperlink!", messed? Privatemusings (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And what if someone is building in userspace an article (or notes on a subject, etc) and is using those images for a hence highly valid reason? Often people refer the other editors of an article or subject to their userpage notes, and it is easier for other editors to better judge the work when the images are included inline. For those images which pose a serious risk, systems are already in place. LinaMishima (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

which images pose a serious risk, Lina? - I'm honestly not really sure what you refer to.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you had read my previous comment, you would be aware of MediaWiki:Bad image list LinaMishima (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have indeed read your previous comment, Lina, but I wasn't 100% clear that you were referring to the bad image list - now I get it :-) I'm not currently persuaded by your idea that images out of article space are beneficial - I refer below to the advantage that if an image is in article space, this might encourage a 'present consensus to include' - something I see as a good idea :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. It is impossible to define what is "offensive", thus, this will just lead to unnecessary and arbitrary censorship of what is supposed to be a free, open, et cetera encyclopedia. John Reaves 03:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's really no reason to institute any sorta quasi-ban on racy images. Introducing them out of context is already condemned, and not including them when they should be is censorship (also condemned). --harej 03:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

what do you guys think of the bit which suggests prohibiting sexualised content outside of article space? I guess that would at least have the advantage of encouraging a present consensus to include - something I would like to support :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But again what constitutes sexualized is massively cultural dependent. Even within a culture there is a lot of disagreement. This is just a minefield with no good definitions and no way of reasonably handingly it. Instruction creep and bias all tied together with a nice big bow. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

why not allow wiki consensus to decide? Doesn't that work pretty well :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Purity by numbers, eh? No. --harej 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

not really sure why you're rejecting the consensus model in this context... but I'm sure it's no biggie... Privatemusings (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Harej is not rejecting the consensus model, they are reminding you that WP:CONSENSUS is about finding the most rational and well-constructed viewpoint, and is judged not on a vote, but on which argument is strongest, when all factors are weighed. Given your sole attempts to counter opposing viewpoints has been to state "I disagree, let's see what others think", it is a fair comment to suggest that you don't wish to consider the merits of people's position, but would rather win through numbers. LinaMishima (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Most likely we won't do this, but by jingo, if we do...

If we are going ahead with this. I think it is only reasonable to demand that the full force of this proposal be directed at all images showing a female ankle or bare arms. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Any picture of a human female is sexualized. They need to stay out of sight! JoshuaZ (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

now now, Cimon and Josh, behave! ....we've not had a great track record of dealing with sarcasm and satire on the wiki lately, so tread carefully! Here's the bottom line, as I see it; I think it would be beneficial to have some clear guidelines about how we (en-wikipedia) handle sexualised content. I think that's part of being a responsible web-citizen etc. etc. I'm not sure reducing things rather extremely is hugely helpful, and personally speaking, I differentiate between bare ankles and arms, and explicit material.

What I'm suggesting is that any image in article space can be discussed and included through the wonderful ways of consensus building, but that outside of the article-space sexualised content should not be displayed, and should rather be linked to (a very much 'not safe for work' link). Whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Linking like you've done above is actually really not a good idea at all since someone might not realize that they are getting linked ot a potentially NSFW image. (Note the link above is in fact such an example). The real issues contained in this have been discussed in the two sections above. So far, there doesn't seem to be a satisfactory response to those issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

good point on the link above - my apologies (and duly noted now) - perhaps I can poke you for your thoughts on whether or not a restriction to article space might be useful? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problems with that have already been detailed, and so far you have yet to counter those. LinaMishima (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I did mention that I wasn't really persuaded :-) - could you give an example of a 'highly valid reason', then we can talk about it :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong title

I believe you mean "sexual content". "Sexualised content" means content that is made to be sexual. One assumes that the sexuality of the content is not in dispute. Risker (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

you're spot on, of course, Risk... oops. Privatemusings (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

now fixed... Privatemusings (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No thanks

Here's the version of Birth of Venus fans of Sandro Botticelli will need to put in userspace if this this proposal passes. I can't wait to get started on Michelangelo's David. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Instruction creep. Durova^Charge! 05:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

yup, reddit - but don't really think it speaks against the benefits of having a guideline / policy in this area... I'm coming at this from a sort of responsibility angle - being a good 'web citizen' and all that... would you object to restricting explicit imagery to the article space on that basis? Privatemusings (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No means no, my friend. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

strangely though, in reading my question to you above, in this case it would seem your 'no' means, 'yes' (you would you object to restricting explicit imagery to the article space on that basis) :-) Hope that's a clear reading of your posts, and please do correct if not... Privatemusings (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No means no. Consider yourself rejected. Publicly. ;) Durova^Charge! 21:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

someone on IRC mentioned your blog :-) I commented there too (the IRC comment was 'I love the way he's written this post' :-) on the matter at hand, I'm now thoroughly confused (don't worry, I often am) about what your answer to my question is! Privatemusings (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He? (checks pants) He??? (checks pants again)....identity crisis... Durova^Charge! 22:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• No means no - As per Durova above. --David Shankbone 05:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

heh! So we're clear on that :-) I wonder if my section at the bottom is a bit clearer, DS? Privatemusings (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No thanks.

Conservapedia is this way. Wikipedia is uncensored and does not need guidelines to tell people what they can or cannot see here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, are you seriously suggesting a ban on showing certain Commons pictures? WP:BADWIKIS? That's absurd to say the least. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah... now I see where this puritan nuttery came from[1]. Should've known that of course... EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

puritan nuttery? feel free to tone it down a bit, eg :-) - I'll probably echo this below, but the bottom line is that I don't really see this as a black and white, nuttery vs. freedom, sort of issue. I believe there to be a broad spectrum of images from 'less appropriate in non-article space' to 'can't really believe anyone would have a problem with this one' (and I'd put the naked clam shell chick on the right in that category, personally!) - I'm basically saying that sexual content should be limited to the article space. I hope that's not a puritanical nutty position (and I'd hope you might recognise that). Privatemusings (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems to accomplish nothing

I just read through this. It seems that the crux of this "proposal" is to put material that is of a sexual nature and not used in any article up for deletion. We pretty much already do this. Even if we don't, you can't exactly call this a "policy" or a "guideline" if all it does is recommend putting things up for deletion. As such, I can't see what this accomplishes. --Deskana (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this accomplishes nothing and should be rejected. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

what do you guys think of the proposal to restrict sexual content to the article space? I believe that's a new idea, and I think it's a good one. whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Deskana is right. This is, in my view, unnecessary instruction creep at best, and actively wrongheaded or worse if viewed somewhat less charitably. PM, this is exactly the sort of thing you were counseled not to do, stir things up for no good reason. Reject this proposal and move on. Or better, delete it as completely unnecessary. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

'Tis why I MfD'd it. //roux   04:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm obviously personally pleased that the proposal hasn't been deleted, and in a bid to clarify things a bit, I've added the section at the bottom which explains a bit more my rationale for supporting this proposal. I think us working out a clear guideline / policy in this area, long term, is an important part of being a responsible website - I hope that's not wrong-headed, nor 'stirring', which is certainly not the intention. Privatemusings (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief

[irony]Could someone write a bot to auto-place fig leaves over any anatomical part that I happen to consider sexual, please?[/irony]

I think the correct answer is "get over it!"

This is a proposed policy that should die an early death. Orphaned images go. Articles are scrutinised for notability and verifiability. Wikipedia is surely not an organ of the puritan mind? It's an encyclopaedia. As long as an image or article is lawful then it can and should stay. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

your post puts me in a terrible position! - you're throwing up the 'organ of the puritan mind' and I'm desperately trying to avoid responding with a dirty pun which would almost certainly be inappropriate! curse your temptations, and I shall persevere regardless!

The fact is though, fiddle (stop it! I shall not be tempted!) - that we're not really talking about auto-placing fig leaves, nor is durova's example above really indicative of the sort of image that I'm talking about. I believe we have some fairly eyebrow raising images, stored at commons because of their potential use in various wmf projects. What I'm saying here is that in the case of sexual content, images should be restricted to the article space. What do you think of that idea? Privatemusings (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that each individual case and each individual use of an image should be considered with regard to the context that obtains where the image is used. I have seen a user page full of naked pictures of the female form. I find it pointless rather than anything else. Thus, if I had any strong feelings about it, I would argue against it for that reason.

I do not find lawful pictures of naked bodies, whatever things those bodies are doing, to need any form of limitation. Titilation is in the eye of the beholder, after all, and titilation from lawful pictures is lawful.

I dislike certain activities and views of them, but that is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and irrelevant - as irrelevant as my liking others.

I view the responsibility for what a child may see online as being wholly with the parent (or those acting in loco parentis) and accept no arguments in that direction (and I do not recall that you presented such arguments) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What I'm after

...well I'm hoping to find support for an ongoing process of examining this type of content carefully, and also examining policy carefully, and I understand that it's a difficult matter for a couple of reasons; firstly that sexual content gets used a bit more often than other material for trolling - with people pinching pic.s from a porn site, and uploading them to see if they can get away with it, and secondly the danger of discussion becoming polarised, with 'radical free speech' folk on one side and 'extremely conservative' folk on the other - neither of which is particularly helpful. I'd hope a clear guideline / policy would be helpful, even though it could be a point of contention also. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to support. I see WP:SOAPBOX, albeit in trying to formulate a policy that is not required because there are sufficient policies present to handle this perfectly well. I see equine necrophilia here. I see so much that I find distasteful in this one man/woman crusade that good faith is increasingly hard to assume.

or, put more simply, "no." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What does'good web citizen' mean anyways?

(copied over from the village pump)

“ Privatemusings, you have repeated this 'Good Web Citizen' line about ten times, but not actually explained why sexual content makes us a 'Bad Web Citizen'. Care to elaborate? — Werdna • talk 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

sure :-) - but in the interests of focusing the discussion at a better spot, I'll take this to the talk page, if I may (I'll copy your post over, and respond) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

”

I can really only explain a bit about my thoughts on the concept of what a 'good web citizen' is - for me, it's closely linked to the idea of being responsible in a 'bigger picture' sort of way. I think broadly we'd all agree that it's related to stuff like the treatment of private data, having the site free from dodgy 'cookies' etc. - but the question here is, I guess, 'do the policies on sexual content have any baring on being a 'good web citizen'. I'd say yes - not a huge one, but there's something worth talking about there, certainly.

Many web sites have 'terms of service' or somesuch, which form the 'rules' / framework for the site - for example, Blogger has a rule which says 'Users may not publish direct threats of violence against any person or group of people' - which I'm sure is pretty much common ground too, and represents one way in which blogger avoids promoting violence etc. (a 'bad thing'). Now we (obviously) don't have 'terms of service' per se - this role (it would seem to me) falls to site policies and guidelines etc. - as well as unwritten practices in many areas.

To try and keep this short, and focused, and only by way of illustration, I'll stick with blogger and highlight the sexual content part of their content policy which states 'Image and video content that contains nudity, sexually graphic material, or material that is otherwise deemed explicit by Google should be made private'. Now that's obviously not going to work for us at all! - but I do feel that we should apply some rigour in asking 'why does a site like blogger make that choice?', 'what are the costs / benefits of such an approach?' etc. etc. - or to bring it back to my terms 'is having a sexual content policy sensible in furthering the aims of being a 'good web citizen'?' (my answer : Yes!).

I note many commentators above (lar, shankers, Durova, for example) have active blogs, which I enjoy! I'm not sure if they feel censored or not on that platform, unable as they are to post sexually explicit material. Nor, at this point, am I totally clear why they would feel such should sexual content on wikipedia be restricted to article space.

In editing / re-reading the above, I feel I've almost put out an apb for all strawmen in the area to descend upon me! I'd love further responses, and am happy to talk through and and all of the above, but would ask for claims that I'm 'trolling', and just generally unhelpful hyperbole to be eschewed... please! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are still full of bare assertions, and lack any supporting evidence. You've written:

but I do feel that we should apply some rigour in asking 'why does a site like blogger make that choice?', 'what are the costs / benefits of such an approach?' etc. etc. - or to bring it back to my terms 'is having a sexual content policy sensible in furthering the aims of being a 'good web citizen'?' (my answer : Yes!).

But you haven't explained why. I disagree that being a "good web citizen" includes restricting sexualised content. I will interpolate your reasoning, since it's absent from the above discussion, as "We don't want children, or people who might be offended by sexualised content, to come across it". Of course, the problem here is that children are most likely to come across sexual content in articles, and, by and large, other namespaces are hidden from the general public. The only people who would have visited the page which was deleted by MfD would have been people actively seeking out sexual content, and I don't see any reason to prohibit them from doing so.

There are also a lot of things which, like sexual content, are considered explicit or offensive. Should we also prevent the publishing of images of Muhammad outside the main namespace? Should we prevent people from adding images of anorexic women outside the main namespace? Where do we draw the line of 'sexual content'? Is it a certain amount of cleavage exposure? Wearing a bikini or underwear? (how skimpy need it be? What's the difference between that and a low-cut top?) Need there be actual exposure of genitalia before it's 'sexual', or will we also prohibit the display of secondary sexual characteristics? Will we prohibit art outside the main namespace? (which often includes nudity or 'sexualisation')

Your proposal lacks substance, supporting evidence, specifics, and rests on the assumption that sexualised content exhaustively and clearly satisfies the criteria of 'explicit/offensive content'. It doesn't even prevent the damage it purports to prevent (presumably, having children or other easily offended people view sexual content), and, even if said purpose were to be achieved, you haven't explained why it's a good thing to prevent children from viewing nudity or other 'sexualised' content. — Werdna • talk 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

detailed response to follow Yum Cha :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, so Yum Cha led somewhere else, and this is gonna have to wait now..... just fwiw - I appreciate your forthright engagement, werdna, and look forward to responding anon :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked werdna on his talk page if he fancied carrying this on, and I suspect he's doing more useful stuff elsewhere, so we've sort of left it there for now :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Sexual" or otherwise "immoral" content is relative to the culture in which the label is applied. A picture of a woman in public without a burka may be perceived very differently across different cultures. Similarly, uncovered female breasts, while viewed as lewd in one culture, may be perfectly normal for other ones. An encyclopedia is a tome of knowledge, and knowledge transcends cultural boundaries. Therefore, censoring or otherwise segregating knowledge due to one cultural's tastes over another can only serve to proliferate systemic bias and cultural absolutism. --slakr^\ talk / 01:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm... this would seem to be an argument that we shouldn't have any sort of restriction on any imagery at all (fair enough) - I disagree, and wonder whether you see any merit in having some sort of discussion (between you and I, or in the broader community) about sexual content? - Privatemusings (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is time that you gave this one person crusade up. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel like King Richard! - I'm not quite sure what you feel I'm crusading for, Tim - and obviously feel free to disengage / wander off - if the bottom line is that I feel it would be a good idea to discuss sexual content on wikipedia, and you feel it's entirely resolved, then that's not really the end of the world :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is simple. This really is over. Consensus shows that it is over. Read the current page bottom. It's done and dusted. No-one except you cares about this. Will I disengage? no. Primarily because you keep tilting at the same windmill, and, if people don't take issue with you then you are likely to slide something under the radar allegedly "nem con". I have assumed good faith and continue to do so, but consensus is consensus. Take it on the chin and leave the topic alone. Soapboxes are very recognisable. Thsi one has already been kicked from under you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ah - well let me reassure you that I don't think any 'under the radar' or 'nem con' type approach is a good idea at all - I sort of interpret your 'done and dusted' comment to mean that you're not really interested in chatting any more (which is cool) but that you're keeping an eye to make sure I don't mark anything as policy or something like that... I won't, and hope that puts your mind at ease a little... Privatemusings (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I am unsure. What I see is an editor who will not take consensus for an answer. And yes, on that basis, I will, from time to time, keep that eye open. I am a strong believer in consensus, and in yielding to it, even when I am sure I am correct. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally accept, and respect the consensus process on this, Fiddle, but I hope it's ok to still think things through, and talk about stuff etc. - I think we're moving forward ok here in terms of trust and understanding, and I'm sure it'll come out in the wash.... best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see evidence of your acceptance of consensus in this matter whatever you do elsewhere. Had you accepted it you would not still be beating the drum on this talk page or elsewhere. Please do not assume that we, if you mean you and I, are moving forward in any meaningful direction together on this. If I trusted your acceptance of consensus here I would have stopped watching this page long ago. this horse died. Flogging it ill becomes you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

< your edit summary seems to indicate you feel I'm more than 'flogging' it, Fiddle! (now there's an image I haven't seen on wiki yet!) - perhaps the key thing for me to communicate is that I agree with your reading of consensus, that I understand that I have no authority, mandate, or ablility, to act outside of consensus, and that I respectfully disagree with it, and you. If you're finding our chat distracting or upsetting, then I'd like to reassure you that I won't be harming the wiki by trying to sneak anything under any radar, nor continuing to post anything other than an openness and willingness to chat if anyone else is so inclined :-) That's what I meant by 'moving forward' - I'm under no illusion that somehow we agree on the meat of the issue. best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there actually a problem?

We want people to be able to edit from work. At work, it is probably not a good idea to use a spare moment to edit penis; but someone may wish to talk on a talk page. So it might make sense to make a rule that says not to put images that Google (Google's SafeSearch blocks web pages containing explicit sexual content from appearing in search results) identifies as sexually explicit on any talk page that has a title that does not indicate a non-workplace safe subject. But do we actually have any like that? WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If people decide to edit from work, it's basically their problem as to whether what they're doing contravenes their workplace policies or not. //roux   00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And to follow on from Roux's comment, there is the issue that there are many good reasons for images to be found outside of article space. It is common for articles to be drafted in userspace, and talk pages will often discuss images for an article. A better proposal would be an easily-used system by which people can choose to block the display of all images (outside of imagespace) of a certain type. These category blockers could be added to the gadgets tab of the preferences page, and could even be applied to IP blocks by request of their owners (with users still being able to disable). That would solve the underlying issue raised by one poster over on the wikipedia review discussion which sparked this narrow policy suggestion. In effect it would be no different to the current offered means of blocking specific images that is offered to users, just easier to use. LinaMishima (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that's a terrible idea. Who decides where the line is between 'blockable' and 'not'? It would require a discussion and consensus, which is just an invitation to a horde of dramallamas. //roux   03:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to see problematic images, get a copy of Opera and set it to "cached images only" mode. That way, you only view the images you decide to see, and it doesn't matter if someone's vandalized the main page with Goatse: you're still safe. --Carnildo (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Other policies

Besides, we already have a very clear policy which describes why this is a very, very bad idea. Privatemusings, please drop this, as all of our time would be better served contributing to the project, rather than increasing bureaucracy, quoted below for emphasis and clarity.

See also: Wikipedia:Profanity, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, Censorship, and Wikipedia:Options to not see an image

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis or masturbation). Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

If you want to censor Wikipedia, please raise the discussion at that talk page. Proposing a new policy that is in direct contravention of long-established and near-universally recognised WP policy is a really bad idea, and contrary to how we work around here. The correct place to discuss this is at the appropriate page, and not to try to get one fundamental policy revoked by starting two discussions in other places. //roux   03:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What does it take to close this?

• There is a consensus against
• There has been a MfD that has been closed on technical grounds
• There are many strong arguments against and one voice crying in the wilderness for

How long do we have to discuss one editor's firmly held belief that there should be something when all others say there should not be? At what stage is this editor's frolic declared to be "enough is enough", and how is it done?

The longer this goes on the less and less I am able to assume good faith precisely because consensus is being ignored. Yet I feel that, every time the hydra grows two more heads we have to hack those off as well. Is this policy proposal some sort of social experiment and a thesis being written on the back of it?

This is a soapbox by all definitions of soapboax. I call upon the originator to recognise consensus and give this tilting at windmills up. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support - This serves no purpose whatsoever. Please close, archive, tag, delete, salt, whatever. Just get rid of it. //roux   09:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings Opened on the summary grounds "disruption of the community by failing to accept consensus." Durova^Charge! 02:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we usually 'close' discussions on proposal talk pages? - equally, I'm under no delusion that consensus, the wind, or the tide are moving in my direction :-) - I'm going to see if anyone else might be interesting in this topic.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

NO! If other people were interested they would have chimed in by now. Give it up. Yet again, you're continuing to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. // roux   04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

...and on ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Basis for discussion?

File:Lego sex 2.jpg

should we have a discussion about explicit imagery on Wikipedia?

I'm going to see if anyone else fancies coming along to talk about this - I've been digging around and looking further into the 'Schools Wikipedia' project - which is very interesting, and seems to have done great work - to my mind it sort of begs the question 'is Wikipedia suitable for schools?' - and I think we might be able to do more to make it more suitable without compromising articles at all.... personally, I feel there's a grey area here worth discussing, and I wonder if anyone else does? best, Privatemusings (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, nobody wants to discuss this. What part of 'this is a really bad idea' has not yet been made clear to you? The overwhelming consensus here is that there is no merit to this, it's not worth discussing, and as usual with the crusades you go on, you should just drop it. // roux   04:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me again quote for you. Read it this time.

See also: Wikipedia:Profanity, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, Censorship, and Wikipedia:Options to not see an image

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis or masturbation). Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

ah well I may yet roux the day I brought it up :-) - I will gently mention that one way to avoid discussing this is to you know... not discuss it (if it helps you to think that you're avoiding 'feeding' me - then that's cool - whatever keeps you friendly and stress free) - I've read that section again now, and will happily talk about why I still feel there's a useful conversation to be had with anyone who'd like to chat... Privatemusings (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me be really, really blunt. You have been told to stop doing this. You have been told in no uncertain terms that your constant championing of utterly pointless causes does you no favours. Moreover, you have been really bluntly told that everything you are proposing is against existing consensus, once again. You refuse to listen to what people tell you. You refuse to 'get it'. I really suggest you stop or I will be asking ArbCom to increase your sanctions to include a total ban on anything in projectspace. You are being disruptive and you are refusing to listen to consensus, which is approximately 100% against you. What you are doing is the very definition of WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. I hope that is crystal clear. // roux   04:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

roux - I feel fairly sure that you're not in danger of imminent agreement with me, equally, however I am hopeful that you might be able to conceive of some good reasons why further discussion, and general proposal work might be useful. I think sexual content on wikipedia may be effecting our 'suitability for schools' - I further believe that there's scope for damage to the project's reputation if the community doesn't consider these issues and form a workable policy that's a bit more nuanced than the section you've posted twice above. Right now I perceive problems with personality rights, with record keeping (things like age verification), and with a general tension between other major site practices (see the blogger stuff above) and our own practices. I'm not suggesting any form of censorship, nor would I support that, and I've mentioned above that some of the hyperbole really isn't helpful. If you want to talk through anything any time, I'm happy to engage with you, be that at my talk page, here - or anywhere! - give some thought to avoiding escalation, and discussing .... Privatemusings (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

centralising a few discussions

There are a few other bits 'n bobs about this sort of thing around (feel free to add);

• MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#deletion_of_2257-triggering_images
• Jimbo's talk page
• Jimbo's talk page again.

now I'd better go figure out what 'section 2257' is.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings 2. Let's keep that a redlink, please. The horse is dead. The flies are gathering. Please stop swinging, set down the stick, and back away. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

your message is clear - you'd like me to stop posting here - but I don't agree that you have any basis, either in policy, or in just general rational terms, I'm afraid... I'm just now learning that Jimbo appears to have had a longstanding position that material that triggers '2257 reporting' should be deleted immediately (I'm still mugging up on what that means in detail, but it's certainly related to this discussion). I'm interested in other views from other community members around the place (I keep finding more!) - I can however point you to an image on commons here which I think I've just nominated for deletion based on a reasonable read of the flickr status of the pic.... your input on that would be appreciated... Privatemusings (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you were sitebanned for three months previously. For a month now a user conduct request for comment has addressed your refusal to respect consensus. If I wanted to silence you I'd just sit back and watch you continue to haul new lumber and nails over to this petard you're building until you hoist yourself. Call it this a blunt reminder from someone who cares--the subtler ways have already been tried. You ain't helping yourself here. Durova^Charge! 05:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why work should stop on a proposal because its been rejected. Rejected today doesn't mean consensus can never be reached, and if he wants to continue to alter the proposal (while leaving the rejected tag, and discussing it here) what is the problem with that? Avruch ^T 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at his history. There's an ongoing pattern--which he has been very explicitly requested to stop--of simply refusing to abide by consensus. Further, the "community support for a sexual content flag" thing is, to be charitable, not at all reflective of reality. // roux   15:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with his history than most, I'd say. Avruch ^T 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, what about user-spacing the current version to let him tweak and re-arrange, etc. MBisanz ^talk 15:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, of course, but I don't think modifying a proposal in Wikipedia: is disruptive as long as he doesn't try to say its other than rejected (a la WP:TOV). Avruch ^T 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that adding a statement saying there is consensus when there is absolutely not is disruptive. // roux   18:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean the "community supports" line? Keep in mind that he added it to a proposal which is rejected - the wording isn't declarative of reality, but part of a proposal he would ultimately like adopted. Avruch ^T 18:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If that was the intent, it's skating awfully close to the line. Point being, this is part and parcel of the exact same pattern that caused an RFC/U to be opened on him. Gentle hints haven't worked, and severe thrashings with a cluebat haven't worked. He's very polite, yes, but very disruptive as was very eloquently said in that RFC/U. It needs to stop. // roux   18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Typically failed proposals don't get userspaced, as having a record of what was considered a bad idea, and why, is considered useful. However to re-re-re-re-start them in the teeth of everyone else saying "no" is considered disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

heh - I really don't see my recent posts as a re-start, Lar - and my reading of policies and practices is that when you find some new stuff that's relevant, or have some new ideas, that it's ok to mention them. Perhaps what would help would be a framework for non-disruptive work on these pages? - I'll mention this to fiddle on my talk page too, and I'm very likely to buy into any shape that isn't simply summed up by 'shut up' - a chilling effect I'm sure we all wish to avoid. Privatemusings (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it took an RFC/U to get you to drop the Steve Crossin thing. What will it take to get you to drop something that has been categorically refused by the community? Nothing you have been adding--especially the false claim of community support--changes your proposal in any way. Please go read WP:CENSOR again. If you want to change the censorship guidelines on WP, that is the place to do so. Except that since the community has roundly and firmly rejected this proposal, there is no place to discuss this. The answer from everyone is NO. // roux   22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, you need to calm down a bit. No one is disputing that the proposal is rejected, but rejected status doesn't bar modifications. Discussion isn't barred permanently because one iteration of a proposal failed to meet consensus. Avruch ^T 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? I'm perfectly calm. I am being increasingly blunt since gentle discussion with privatemusings has thus far failed to make any kind of impression. Kindly don't comment on my calmness or lack thereof. // roux   22:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I was thinking more of a copy, like {{subst:Wikipedia:Sexual content}} to User:Privatemusings/Sexual content that would let PM play with it and then maybe reshow it. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the New Section from the proposal

The following section was added to the proposal. Since consensus has already been built I have removed the new section and placed it here.

===Proposal 2 - A 'sexual content flag'=== The community supports the creation of a 'sexual content flag' - which allows users to choose whether or not explicit content (perhaps judged loosely by the 'safe for work' bar) will appear. This may be achievable through some implementation of the flagged revisions extension, or require further development, however the technical means of achieving the outcome aren't really material in evaluating the community's wishes.

It is getting to be beyond a joke that this has been rejected but that the proposer keeps modifying it. Enough truly is enough. This whole thing is getting very close to RfC material. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wow... the community supports no such thing. There comes a point where someone is not only refusing to listen to consensus, they're actively making things up that don't exist. How do we deal with this? // roux   12:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably it appears that this user declares that he listens to and abides by consensus when all evidence points to his attempting to drive a coach and horses through it. My good faith has proven to be misplaced. I have made sure I have voted against his candidacy at Arbcom and pointed my rationale here. Short of banning the user for a period I see no way of bringing him into line with accepted practices. Even then he appears to enjoy being in the limelight. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It took an RFC/U to get him to finally drop the Steve Crossin thing. Unfortunately, he drew no lessons from that--namely, start listening to consensus. I suspect that Durova's redlink above will need to be made blue in order to get him to stop doing this, and prevent him from doing it again (and again and again and again and again) in the future. // roux   13:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for it. One more transgression and that's it for me. What a waste of effort, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

< - it's usually ok to modify wiki proposals - and no disrespect is intended whatsoever - please see above, and my talk page for the idea that we create a framework for non-disruptive work here - and I'll reword the above which seems to have confused some. Privatemusings (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

the bad image list

I've added a bit about this - because on reflection, it's important to explain in this context, and is an interesting thing to look at in terms of current practice - lots of questions about it here, and I'm reading up some of the older discussions (there are heaps) Privatemusings (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

can anyone explain simply the significance of the 'MediaWiki' prefix? - Does this mean the page relates to wikipedia's implementation of MediaWiki, or would such a page on other projects sort of automatically work? - I'll sniff around a bit.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They're common to all MediaWiki installations, and most, if not all of them, are kind of important. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

another page to review

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines

This one's pretty interesting - covering much related ground, and it's linked to from other policy areas.... Privatemusings (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed this yet again

And heading, when I can be bothered, for some sort of request for administrator intervention with User:Pribatemusigs.

Proposal 2 - A sexual content flag

The community could support the creation of a 'sexual content flag' - which allows users to choose whether or not explicit content (perhaps judged loosely by the 'safe for work' bar) will appear. This may be achievable through some implementation of the flagged revisions extension, or require further development.

If such a flag were technically feasible, then it may further be sensible to develop a policy surrounding the terms of use - for example inviting users to confirm that they are of a certain age, and that certain material is legal in their jurisdiction etc. - this is similar to the approach taken at Flickr for example.

This one man crusade is dead, buried, and over. This is WP:POINT and WP:SOAPBOX. The entire proposal was rejected. There is a consensus against it which you are ignoring. I am no longer able to assume good faith over this user. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fiddle, I think you may have some misunderstandings about how proposal pages should work, I also think you may have some misunderstandings about the acronyms you're referring me to, and I also think you may have some misunderstandings about the difference between working on a proposal, and having sex with a dead horse ;-) (both on this page above, and elsewhere) - please don't mention that again, it's distasteful.

I'll seek some more eyes and ears here too, and once again I'll re-iterate that I'll work with you on developing a framework for non-disruptive editing of this proposal, or I'll disengage and steer clear of you if you wish to be left alone, but I'm afraid I disagree that the only way for me to respect consensus is not to post any new ideas or anything. I intend to put the section above back, and have some small extra bits to add too, at some point. Privatemusings (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I expect I may be confused. But I also understand consensus. You are not someone that is to be worked with. You say one thing and mean another. I have ceased to assume good faith about you having given you the benefit of the doubt for a very great deal of time. I will, however, work against you in any proposal you make to increase censorship. There is no dialogue that I can have with you that appears to me to have any potential for bearing fruit. Understand that I am not hostile to you, but that I am hostile to what your objectives appear to me to be. I see your edits here to be disruptive and divisive under the pretence of forming a consensus. It also seems to me that you choose not to understand things that you are told by many people. You are flogging a dead horse. It went rotten a substantial time ago. Walk away from it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel sorry for these poor horses - please stop referring to rotten flesh etc. Let's take the paragraph above - perhaps you could say what you disagree with, whether you think it's clear etc. Maybe you can come up with another idea - or maybe you just don't want to talk about it at all! All of these are fine - what's not so cool is you saying that because this whole issue is resolved (I disagree) and because consensus is with you (sure) that it's inappropriate to even think about ideas such as the one mentioned above. Here's a little litmus test - if the idea above is disruptive - who is it disrupting? Privatemusings (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Let's take the paragraph above - perhaps you could say what you disagree with, whether you think it's clear etc."

I think you should re-read this page. People have made it crystal clear what they disagree with. namely, the entire proposal.

"Maybe you can come up with another idea"

We have: WP:CENSOR. I suggest you go read it again.

"what's not so cool is you saying that because this whole issue is resolved (I disagree)"

You're wrong. The issue is dead, buried, decomposed, recycled as firelighters, fed to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, shat out, decomposed again, and used as potting soil for the I'm Not Listening To You Tree.

"and because consensus is with you"

I for one have supported application of consensus I disagree with vehemently. I have also bowed gracefully to consensuses I have disagreed with. You need to learn how to do these things. Consensus is not with you and likely never will be.

"it's inappropriate to even think about ideas such as the one mentioned above"

It is inappropriate to keep beating the dead horse long after you have been told by a large number of people that you are on a hiding to nothing. It is inappropriate to try and end-run around an already-existing policy by proposing another. For the last time: if you want to change WP:CENSOR, the place to discuss the change is WT:CENSOR. This is not a difficult concept to understand; if I wanted to change the WP:3RR policy, the place to do so would be there, not by continually harping on WP:2RR after many people have told me that the subject needs to be dropped. // roux   01:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party. I echo the concerns that most of the other people here have shared so far; I don't see what this adds to CENSOR; it doesn't add anything except semantics, semantics that we don't need. All we need is a blanket statement saying that we don't censor images and that as long as an image enhances the quality of an article, we keep it. We don't need anything less than we have now, and we certainly don't need anything wrong. It should be pretty clear by now that this is never going to fly. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings should certainly be allowed to promote a view that is currently a minority, otherwise consensus can never change. --Apoc2400 (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

He was allowed to promote the view, and it was shot down in flames on VP. He then moved here to promote the same view, and was similarly shot down in flames. Similarly perennial proposals at WP:CENSOR have been likewise shot down. He is no longer simply promoting a viewpoint, he is now definitively ignoring consensus to prove a point, using the page as a soapbox, and doing it all in the maddening way that Durova (I think it was Durova) so eloquently encapsulated at PM's RFC/U. An RFC/U, it should be pointed out again, that was started because PM has a long history of refusing to listen when people disagree with him. This is more of the same. To put it another way, here's the discussion to date, in a nutshell:

Privatemusings: Hey guys, I think we need to change our policies to prevent people from seeing possibly dirty images, what do you think?

Everyone: No. Please see WP:CENSOR.

Privatemusings: Great, now that people are talking about it, what do you think about changing our policies to prevent people from seeing possibly dirty images?

Everyone: No. Please see WP:CENSOR.

Privatemusings: Okay, but I think it's a good idea, what do you guys think?

Everyone: No. Please see WP:CENSOR.

Privatemusings: Alright, I think we need more discussion.

Everyone: No we don't, we've already discussed this ad infinitum. Also, please see WP:CENSOR.

Privatemusings: Great, so let's discuss this!

Everyone: No, and the equine necrophilia is really getting tiresome. You should really read WP:CENSOR.

Privatemusings: Alright, so we should talk about it more. I really think we need to change our policies to prevent people from seeing possibly dirty images. What do you think?

Everyone: No. Please see WP:CENSOR.

...lather, rinse, repeat. This is Privatemusings' tack in every dispute that he's championed: he just won't listen. In the Steve Crossin case which spurred the RfC/U, he refused to listen to multiple people on-wiki and off telling him that he needed to stop. He kept on going. Even after, if memory serves me correctly, Steve Crossin told him to stop, he kept going. PM simply refuses to listen to consensus when it doesn't accord with what he wants. Are these issues worth dusting off from time to time and taking another look, gauging the pulse of the community? Absolutely. Has this issue been sufficiently revisited? Yes. Has the pulse been taken? Yes. Will PM bow to consensus? No. And even more to the point: This whole discussion is an end-run around WP:CENSOR. The only appropriate place to be discussing changes to extant policy is at that policy's talkpage. // roux   03:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm listening, roux - but I'm afraid I disagree. I think there's something useful to be worked on here outside of 'WP:CENSOR' - I really do :-) - and please please stop equating my actions with having sex with dead horses! Privatemusings (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

or to put it in a smarter, clearer way "WP:NOTCENSORED is based on the principle that we don't omit anything from the encyclopedia to protect the readers. This or similar proposals are based on the idea that we might voluntarily choose to omit something to protect outside parties who might be harmed by it." - that's pretty much my perspective too - expect I'd substitute 'omit' with 'form a sensible policy for how to include without causing harm or drama' in this context. :-) (notice the lack of reference to sex with dead horses herein too) Privatemusings (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Beating a dead horse" means trying to get something to move that won't. As in, one whips a horse to make it go faster, but eventually it will drop dead, and no amount of beating it will make it move again. It has nothing to do with sex, Aussie slang meanings for 'flogging' notwithstanding. 'To flog' means 'to whip or beat'. // roux   03:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That the appropriate place to discuss this proposal is the WP:CENSOR talkpage is an opinion, and not reflective of any policy I'm familiar with. Similarly, there is no policy that constrains the good faith proposal of a policy or of altering it in various ways to see if it garners more support. It probably serves little purpose for privatemusings to continue to propose alternate wording at this point, since the mood of the community seems to be against the very idea - but I don't see how it is disruptive. He is not doing an "end run around consensus" by altering the proposal. Consensus is still that the policy is rejected, and I see no attempts from him to declare otherwise. I'm not sure why his conduct here is so upsetting to Fiddle Faddle and Roux - what's the big deal? Just keep light tabs on the talkpage to see if the discussion begins to involve more people. Without that, you don't have to fear that the page will become policy behind your back. Avruch ^T 03:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's part and parcel of a pattern that PM has been explicitly requested to stop, that the RFC/U on him was about (the specific details of the Steve Crossin thing were red herrings). // roux   03:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall privatemusings being asked to refrain from proposing or editing policies. Can you point me to that? I do remember him being advised to stay out of issues and drama where his involvement can't help and where he doesn't have all the relevant background, but I don't see how that applies here. Avruch ^T 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

He was asked, if memory serves, to stop championing causes after consensus is clearly against him. // roux   03:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings, how do bits and pixels cause harm to outside parties? If one assumes for a moment that bits and pixels can cause harm to outside parties, in what way do our extant policies/guidelines/dispute resolution mechanisms et al. fail to address said harm? This (and similar proposals) seems like a solution searching for a problem. L0b0t (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the overdone horse references - "beating a dead horse" is a common reference to taking something beyond its natural endpoint, whereas "equine necrophilia" (used once by Fiddle Faddle and once by Roux) does indeed refer to having sex with dead horses. Can we let any horse references drop now? Awesome, thanks. Avruch ^T 03:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh, was a bit of humour. Perhaps equine sadism is more accurate. // roux   03:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

light-hearted version of why policy is a good idea

"some guy jizzing all over himself, taking a picture of it, and uploading it as an "educational" picture just makes us look stupid, in my opinion" - this made me smile - and I thought 'well that's a good example of something that is a) a bit embarrassing and b) effects our ability to work with organisations like schools and c) we need to be extra careful that the photo is properly licensed, and isn't being used without permission, from the copyright holder and the subjects or anything like that. Privatemusings (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

the only pictures in the last 2 yrs that actually roughly corresponded to that description in quotes above were removed and the editor banned--I think by jimbo personally. My own view is that our approach to sexual content is already very prudish. We have the same few images that we use over and over. I recognize the tendency of some editors to be deliberately as provocative as possible, but i think we already over-react preemptively. Our problem seems to be the very small number of editors able to work with this content in a straightforward way and willing to spend the necessary care on it. DGG (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry, DGG - but I think that's a bit inaccurate this is one very much not safe for work example. There are many more. Privatemusings (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So what if it's NSFW? We are not the world's babysitters, and people are only likely to see those images if they are looking at sex-related articles anyway. Quite apart from the fact that we are not responsible for what people do with their time at work, if someone is looking up Pearl necklace while someone else is paying for their time, they have got to know that imagery or text is guaranteed to show up that is likely to fall afoul of most workplace policies. We don't, for example, remove depictions of Muhammad even though those are not safe for anywhere in many countries. Please re-read WP:CENSOR. We do not censor images; users are expected to use their own discretion. This proposed policy is explicitly counter to that policy (and, again, should be discussed there), and could only create epic levels of drama when it comes to setting the line of what is and what is not 'sexual' content. For many people, images of women period are sexual and/or offensive images. Should those be flagged? What about a man in a Speedo or other spandex/lycra-type material, as genitals tend to be clearly outlined? What is the precise amount of thigh we are allowed to show before it becomes 'sexual'? Is a photo documenting a nude beach, including inhabitants, a sexual thing? Nudism is explicitly nonsexual. How about images of cultures where nudity is the norm? Will they be considered 'sexual'? That runs the risk of imposing one culture's norms over others, which is inherently POV. What about photos from major photographers? The only one I can think of offhand is Mapplethorpe, but many photographers take pictures of nudes as exploration of the human form, and not as sexual content. Are you saying that any naked body is definitively sexual? If not, where is the line? Can you not see how setting that line is just an invitation to endless, endless drama?

Our policy as it stands sets a very simple bar: images are restricted to those which serve to educate and illustrate the article in question. Therefore on an article about Heraldry I would expect to see coats of arms and not the logo of the various newspapers named Herald, and on the article Breast I would expect to see photos of breasts and not pieces of a freshly-butchered chicken.

To put it another way: the bar we set is no bar, so long as images fall within US law (which is why child pornagraphy, for example, is excluded; we should, I will grant, ensure that all nude images are in compliance with US law on nudity with regards to record-keeping of ages of people involved, but I say that only because our servers are located in the USA and avoiding legal entanglements where reasonable is probably a wise idea, and a disclaimer stating "if you're uploading nude images you hereby affirm that these images are in accordance with US title $whatever and have the records on file if required to produce them); users are responsible for what they choose to view and where. We are not here to act in loco parentis to children; it is their parents' job to monitor the child's internet use or not as their personal views on parenting dictate. It is not our job to protect someone from viewing objectionable content when they are on work time; presumably if someone has a job they are a competent adult who can choose to accept consequences for violating workplace policy.

You have not shown any need for this policy that is not addressed by already-extant Wikipedia policies. Which is where this discussion should have been anyway. // roux   05:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

we're in danger of agreeing, roux :-) - I'm glad your advocating good record keeping etc. in regard to sexual content. Perhaps you, like me, are concerned that the recording keeping for the image linked to is perhaps a little sub-par, and that it's both right and sensible for us to have a look at that issue? Some of your post above seems to indicate that you feel it's impossible to work out what is sexual content and what isn't (I think other users have expressed this same problem) - I think we can probably figure something out, once we agree that it's sensible to. Further - I wonder if you noticed the proposal to restrict sexual content to article space (as we do with 'non free content')- there seem to be some downsides (creating of 'wiki porn' galleries etc.) and I'm not sure the upsides balance it out... this isn't about censorship at all (I think you're starting to see that?) - it's about good practice. best, Privatemusings (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh.. no, we're not agreeing. I don't think there's any particular issue with record-keeping, just that if someone were to launch a legal action, WMF could theoretically get in hot water for not obeying. Then again, there's probably something GFDL-related that indicates that WMF is not responsible for that content, so no issue. As for 'seems to indicate'.. no, it isn't 'seems'; it is impossible to draw the line as to what is and is not sexual content in a way that doesn't bulldoze various cultural traditions. I notice you didn't actually answer any of the questions. And as for 'sensible'... that is the whole point of what everyone is telling you: it is not sensible, not needed, and by this point the horse has returned as a zombie and starred in a series of straight-to-DVD movies. This categorically is about censorship: it's about your determination to wipe out 'sexual content' from alleged people who allegedly don't want to see it, and your definition of what sexual content is. Answer the questions I posed. // roux   05:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

if I agree that we're not agreeing, will we disappear in a puff of logic? - I most certainly will answer your questions, and I'm glad to be moving forward :-) - I'll probably sort of grab them out, and answer below in due course, if that's cool :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not an attack: you have the most bizarre definition of 'moving forward' that I have ever seen. Nothing is 'moving forward' here; that term implies progress. This proposal has been roundly and completely shot down by consensus, and nothing I have said contradicts that consensus, merely expands upon my contributions to it. 'Moving forward' here would require you stating--as you eventually did with the misguided Steve Crossin thing--that you understand consensus is overwhelmingly against you and that you will drop the issue. The questions are pointing out that there is no way to define what is and is not sexual content in the context of this proposal in any meaningful way. Some cultures would consider a woman in a tshirt and shorts sexual, some cultures consider a woman wearing nothing but a loincloth unsexual. The only way to stake out what is and is not sexual is to prioritise one set of cultural mores above all others. That is completely unacceptable in terms of both NPOV and the concept of an encyclopedia. // roux   05:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant that you asking questions, and asking for answers was moving forward really, roux - further your latest posts continues to clarify your position - I'll respond below anon.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem. My position--as well as the positions of everyone else who has commented here--was crystal clear from the get-go. // roux   06:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So how would our existing policies et al. fail to deal with that situation? Why do we need a new policy? L0b0t (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you compare PMusing's comment with the actual policy, there is one complete failure to understand policy there, unrelated to censorship. They have had this one pointed out before, but apparently they wish to change that rule too without actually discussing it on the relevant page. Metaphorical cookie to anyone who spots this :P LinaMishima (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

you've intrigued me, Lina! - I'm re-reading in detail now..... Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hint: have a re-read of WP:IUP, too... LinaMishima (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ah - well maybe you're talking about the redundancy of my 'model age / release' bit with the 'IUP'? - lemme know... Privatemusings (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with DGG here; we're already beyond what I would consider a safe point on the censorship vs freedom line, and I don't think it needs to get any worse here than it already is. If anything, we should be looking to expand and improve our content in these areas rather than using the same images over and over again in an almost religious manner as we are now.

As an aside though, I don't think there's anything this proposal adds to existing policy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

copied from the mailing list

I started a bit of a discussion about this on the au mailing list (in that context, because we're planning some school outreach work, and I'm interested in figuring out what might be sensible to communicate to them) - here's some input;

But won't there be other forms of content that are liable to be of concern to schools? E.g. illicit drugs, contraception, detailed descriptions of serial killer crimes, photos of mass graves, etc. There are plenty of things that people may get upset about, for a wide variety of reasons and beliefs.

Maybe what's needed is a generalised approach, where you say on a picture / article / whatever, that something may be offensive because of the following reasons, tick all that apply: [ ] sexually explicit [ ] contains swear words [ ] contains recreational drug use [ ] contains graphic depiction of dead people ... etc

Then a user could say, either: a) I wish to censor _myself_ for the following categories of content. b) I wish to censor the following usernames and/or IP addresses for the following categories of content, _and_ I am the legal guardian or have a legal duty-of-care towards these users, _and_ I represent the organisation which is paying in its entirety for this Internet access.

Then when someone attempt to access some content which violates the above restrictions, it puts up a big warning sign, and says "you cannot access this content because it contains <type of censored content>, which was censored by <you/other person's username>, and this censorship was put in place on <date>". That way it's clear what's blocked, and why, and by whom.

Therefore, this allows:

• People to censor themselves - i.e. censor what they and they alone

see.

• Schools to censor content for teachers and/or students.
• Employers to censor content for employees.
• Parents can censor content for their children.

However, neither you, nor the government, nor an ISP, have any right to censor what I see on a connection that I pay for, until such time as you're willing to foot the bill (in its entirety) for my net connection, and are willing to accept a legal duty-of-care (e.g. adopt me / take on employment obligations including paying me the minimum wage + superannuation / enrol me in a recognised qualification that you run as a registered educational site / etc) ... a simple principle, but one that Senator Conroy & the UK ISPs & various other nanny-staters might do well to consider.

Sound fair? Hopefully such an approach would balance the needs of different groups (such as schools, parents, etc) who may have legitimate concerns, against the needs of those who value personal freedoms and personal responsibility.

I'll copy a bit of the above into the 'flag' bit Privatemusings (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fer cryin' out loud Privatemusings, give it a rest already. L0b0t (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe I should have been a bit clearer, lobot - that's not my input :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Seriously. This is now officially forumshopping. You were told no at VP.. so you came here. You've been told no here, so now you're trying it on the AU email list. Where next? // roux   02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

well I'm talking about it on IRC with someone now, roux ;-) not sure if that counts.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oy gevalt. // roux   02:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That was shot down three years ago: see Wikipedia:Descriptive image tagging. --Carnildo (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I see some seeds of fantastic work, to be honest.... I'll read around more, and maybe start mining! Privatemusings (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No! The point is that it was shot down. The same way this was shot down when you proposed it at VP. The same way this has been shot down here. The same way that similar perennial proposals have been shot down every single time they have been proposed. Seriously, what is it going to take to make you understand? // roux   03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not the place of Wikipedia to do those kinds of things. If someone wants to censor their kids internet connection because they're afraid of him finding out about weed or what a vagina looks like, fine, but I don't see any reason why we should even condone that, let alone make it easier for others to do. If someone wants to install parental control software, fine, they're going to do it anyway, but we certainly shouldn't be making censorship easy. Also, this has been shot down quite a while ago if I recall. Remember that we have the general disclaimer. You can already 'self-censor', if you're oddball enough that any of those things bother you; its called "don't look at the article". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This round alone has been shot down conclusively here, and was shot down previously at VP before PM brought it here. A stroll through the archives of WP:NOT should show previous incarnations--likewise shot down. PM is simply refusing, as usual, to listen to consensus. // roux   04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

no, roux - I'm communicating ideas which fly wildly against consensus - something this healthy wiki culture can embrace, I'm sure :-) (take solace from the large 'rejected' tag at the top of the proposal page) - @Celarnor - I'm interested in the knock on effects of your position on the utility of Wikimedia within certain contexts, and I'm also interested that you seem certain there is no nuance possible in this area - what do you think about us at least asking for conformation of model's ages within sexual content, for example? Privatemusings (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"no, roux - I'm communicating ideas which fly wildly against consensus" - which you have been told to stop doing because it's disruptive. // roux   04:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, well I'm afraid at that point, I really can't agree, roux.... (hence my guess that the culture here take handle ideas which aren't in line with consensus) - I'm sure you can see the problem if we develop a vibe where only ideas that match consensus can be expressed. I've got a few ideas for how to avoid disruption (and am trying to de-escalate and keep discussing etc. etc.) - and as I mentioned, I'm also well up for working on a framework for non-disruptive work here with you, or anyone.... any ideas? Privatemusings (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ps. if I added 'local' before 'consensus' it would match more closely my intended statement too.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I'm saying, of course ideas that go against consensus can be expressed--that's the point of BRD. There has to come a point, though, at which you realise "I think this might be a good idea" has been completely and soundly rejected by the community. You passed that point some time ago; this type of proposal has been rejected by the community on multiple occasions over the years, and your forumshopping isn't going to change that. In a nutshell: proposing ideas good, recognising when those ideas have been completely rejected in their entirety is better. This is exactly the same thing you did with Steve Crossin--everyone was telling you the same thing and you refused to listen until an RfC/U eventually got your attention. Durova, one of your staunchest supporters, has told you to stop. When will you get the message? What will it take to make you understand that you're not 'expressing an idea', you're actively being disruptive by refusing to listen to what everyone is telling you? // roux   04:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not see the utility of Wikipedia in these situations. I see the utility of a fork of Wikipedia under those conditions, for the utility of institutions/parents who aren't willing to use a Wikipedia without censorship. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

< - heh.. well I added this bit earlier Ask uploaders to confirm the age of models in media containing sexual content - I wonder if you disagree with that? - and I'm still forming, and working on all sorts of ideas! My reading is that it's fairly normal to do this as part of a proposal page. Now if you're absolutely sure that you're going to also disagree with the next idea that I'm going to put on the page, then I'm afraid I would probably tend to feel that you may not really be assessing them on their merits - which is a shame. Perhaps we should move this sort of meta-chat over to my talk page? - either ways, I remain open to any ideas you've got for how I can avoid being disruptive which can't be summed up by 'shutting up' Privatemusings (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been made crystal clear to you that this proposal--like the dozens of similar proposals before it--is completely rejected. What will it take to make you understand this, and understand that you are doing the exact same thing you have done so many times before? // roux   04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

do you mind if I move this to my talk in a litle while, roux? - it's sort of 'me' centred discussed really... I absolutely do understand that this proposal is rejected, and though I think it should be adopted, I'm happy to continue working underneath the 'rejected' tag - it's no biggie really. You seem to be advocating a much stronger position which is that the page should no longer be edited? - that's not really how wiki things work, in my view (nor should it be!). If you want to chat about Steve, then we can, and if you want to chat about anything else, we can do that too.. if you're frustrated and annoyed at wasting time here, then feel free to wander off, and come back at your leisure too - there's little danger of a cheeky anti-consensus proposal somehow morphing into policy here (honest!) and I'll once again state that if you have any suggestions for how non-disruptive editing of this proposal would work, then I'm all ears :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I do mind. I have no interest in discussing Steve or anything else besides this proposal and your refusal to bow to consensus. Since you yourself just said it won't be made into policy, why are you continuing? It has been rejected, rejected, rejected. It will continue to be rejected. All historical proposals along the same lines have been rejected. All future proposals will be rejected. WP:CENSOR is clear and a core value of Wikipedia. Give it up already. And yes, I am absolutely advocating that editing on the proposal will stop. It is a waste of everyone's time. The simple fact of continuing to push for something that has already been rejected countless times by consensus is what is disruptive. // roux   05:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, to answer your question (Where next?) : Commons:Commons:Sexual content. multichill (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh FFS. // roux   22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

< came here to drop a note in about the Commons thing, but I see Multi's a step ahead :-) - there's also discussion on the foundation mailing list... Privatemusings (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See also this mailing list thread. Avruch ^T 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)