Commons talk:Sexual content/Archive 1

Archive 1 | Archive 2 →

December 2008 Proposal

pragmatic discussion appeal

I thought I'd drop a note in here to highlight my interest in pragmatic discussions, perhaps above more philosophical responses. The large, and increasing, volume of sexual content herein, to me means that discussing the nuts and bolts of how we wish to manage this material is appropriate. I'd like to state clearly that I wish to impose absolutely no restrictions on any class of images, from bridges in poland, to shaved women's bits, however I do believe that some systemic evolution, and differentiation, in how we manage them may be sensible :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

I would just like to say that I oppose this proposed policy based on the following grounds -

1. If we treat images with a controversial characteristic separately then images without then we are practicing a type of censorship we have long deplored.
2. This policy is completely incompatible with the principles and practices that we have been operating under for years. It would result in the deletion of tens of thousands of images almost immediately. The biggest deal is the requirement that Commons some how keep track of personality rights. See Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freeness requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia,"
3. This policy foists off huge amounts of work on an group that is not designed to deal with it. Personally rights waivers would require signed&mailed or signed&faxed documentation and the OTRS team is simply not equipped to deal with that on the scale being proposed here.
4. "Sexual content" is completely undefined. The concept of "sexual" is curtual and since commons is world-wide we have no single culture to draw from. This image would be consisted inapropriatly revealing by the standards of fundamentalist Islamism and Christian groups. On the other hand, nearly fully nudity is consisted normal and non-sexual. For example, this image.

So, those are my objections to this proposal. --J.smith (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I also oppose. This is a solution looking for a problem and an unnecessary (over)reaction to an issue (IWF) being handled at the foundation level. COM:PEOPLE, Commons:Nudity and COM:SCOPE#Censorship already set forth expectations related to media containing people in various states of undress and/or engaged in certain actions. In addition to redundancy (particularly to COM:PEOPLE), imprecision, bureaucracy and instruction creep, these proposals unnecessarily burden and impair the ability of the Commons to fulfill its purpose. Different projects have different interpretations and values regarding "sexuality". It is not the place of the Commons to make decisions on what constitutes "sexual" or how and if the use of such images will be limited. The several-times-linked w:MediaWiki:Bad image list, for example, is an English Wikipedia list and does not reflect decisions or opinions of other projects. Эlcobbola _talk

I confess to being a bit unsure as to the significance of the 'Mediawiki' prefix at that page - presumably it's a page which effects the implementation of Mediawiki over at en? - as such, it's obviously not currently functional over here, but hopefully it's still of interest in seeing how current practice over there works? best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Although this is a worthy attempt, I also have to oppose for the reasons given above. While our current policies may not be perfect, they have been significantly clarified and tightened up in this area over the last six months and have been tested and successfully applied in a variety of deletion requests. If any improvements are needed, policy can of course always be tweaked, but this proposal simply cuts right across the principles we apply here on Commons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose - see en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content and en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content & en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content/Archive 1. Looks like your proposal failed at enwp and now you're trying to force it on us. Multichill (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose in the strongest possible terms. - You are now undeniably forum-shopping, and this ridiculousness needs to end. As of right now, you tried posing this at en:WP:VP, and were rejected. Then en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content, and were rejected. Then the AU mailing list where, presumably, you were rejected. And now here, where you have also been rejected. See a pattern yet? Since you seem incapable of stopping of your own volition, it is time to have you stopped. Roux (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose implaccably. I also agree with Roux and others here. This horse died here. You refuse to listen to any except your own inner voice. I wonder if it was you who got the IWF to block parts of Wikipedia in the UK. I have got way past assuming good faith with you. Timtrent (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose. - this has been discussed (and failed) before. Project scope, Copyrights and Disclaimers are enough. --5ko (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose RFC 3514 was funny, but this is becoming bloody ridiculous and an abuse of the project namespace. You do not have any sort of Commons project endorsement for this, dont appear to have a serious grasp of the policy and current practises here, nor sought any opinions on the matter. I recommend that this is moved into Privatemusings userspace or deleted entirely. Do not peg hot potatoes at the community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose; as already said, this has been discussed elsewhere and has failed miserably. It needs to go away. Celarnor (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, oppose, a thousand times oppose Privatemusings, please return to Wikipedia Review. The members there are more than happy to agree with you and stroke your ego. You have depleted my well of good faith towards you. It is clear you have no interest in building an encyclopedia and would rather waste everyone's time with meaningless drama. L0b0t (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose - As per everyone else. We have policy in this area already. PM, go review it and if you think it needs tweaking, propose tweaks. I have marked this proposal as {{Rejected}} (and I had to create new templates to do it... :) ) ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Very strong oppose, WMF projects are not censored (Wikipedia is not an neither is Commons). Please note: This is a hint not to post this proposal on any more projects. It will not be accepted. There are sufficient policies protecting us from having to host explicit pornography and the like. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

current policy

A balance has to be struck between on the one hand accepting legitimate new high-quality educational content that some may find offensive, and on the other allowing Commons servers to become swamped with large quantities of quasi-pornographic images created for recreational rather than educational purposes. The latter would harm the reputation of Commons as a good faith provider of educational content.

This is interesting to me - I wonder if there's any room to disuss how we go about establishing balance, and how we make the call to avoid the quasi-pornographic swamping referred to. I think the mention of 'reputation' is salient too, btw.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of "drop this, drop this now" is not getting through to you? Roux (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

see below. Privatemusings (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

this policy / a policy

something I'm not sure if I've expressed clearly enough is that whilst I've tried to work up some ideas that make sense in this policy, I totally understand that I'm a bit useless in many ways, and am unlikely to produce a nuanced, useful policy document at first attempt - I do however believe strongly that there are significant benefits to working on a policy which is a bit more detailed than the current policy - I'm not totally certain that addressing pragmatic concerns within the censorship policy is helping, to be honest..... Privatemusings (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of "this is completely rejected" isn't getting through to you? Roux (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

see below Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This user, Privatemusings

What processes are there here for this user to be stopped now, completely and irrevocably? Enough is enough, and we have all had more than enough.

The user name is irony, of course. These musings are not private.

When a user refuses to bow to consensus the time to assume good faith is over. Please will someone who is familiar with global user abuses handle this user and bring him into line on ALL projects. Timtrent (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The place to start, here at Commons, is probably COM:AN/U. If you think there is an issue, raise it there. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, this nanny-state expansionist needs to be reigned in. Privatemusings is nothing but disruptive with his forum shopping and utter refusal to bow to consensus. L0b0t (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

just a quick note to mention that roux, Tim, lobot and I have previously discussed the related proposal at en here. I believe roux and tim feel that it's inappropriate and disruptive to edit a proposal which has been rejected, though I disagree. I'll re-iterate here what I've mentioned to both several times, which is that I'm more than happy to work together on some sort of framework for non-disruptive work here - or I'd be very likely to accept any ideas of theirs which allow new ideas to be discussed as they arise. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Um.. no. 'Discussion' implies that you have been even remotely receptive to the venues--three, now--which have told you that this proposal is bad to begin with and can go nowhere but down. As opposed to what you've actually done, which is to completely ignore everyone telling you it's awful and you are wrong and you are wasting everyone's time. This is something of a pattern with you. Give it a rest. Roux (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No. There has been a discussion which overwhelmingly showed that the consensus was against Privatemusings. Everty time he has seen consensus against he has disregarded it, and pretended that there is a discussion that allegedly moves things forwards. He finds new flagpoles to run his censorship standard up, and causes disruption. He is more than happy to work "together" on his terms and against consensus. Enough is enough. Timtrent (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Raised at ANU

I have raised this at ANU and am placing this here so that Privatemusings may see that it has been done. What a waste of everyone's time this whole dead horse flogging is. But my view is that unless comprehensively opposed he will continue and continue and continue Timtrent (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

moral issues are inapplicable? ;-)

I noticed Multi's edit which sort of shores up the 'moral issues' question - the proposal now states that they are inapplicable - well I disagree I'm afraid. I think it's reasonable to say that if you take a photograph of a naked person in their own home, moral issues apply regardless of whether or not you crop or blur their face. I understand the legal issues may be different, and I dunno much about that, but there you go...... Privatemusings (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Point is, your morality is not the morality of everyone else. Drop this please. Roux (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

doesn't that apply to 'identifiable people' also though, roux? - see COM:PEOPLE#Moral_issues - I'm suggesting they apply not only here (thoroughly rejected!) but also at COM:NUDE (see talk page there) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing applies here, because this proposal has been rejected. Your insistence on continuing to edit this proposal is so far beyond refusing to accept consensus that I don't even have words to describe it. You're like a little kid who has been told under no circumstances may he have any more cookies, and keeps delving into the cookie jar anyway, with increasingly disingenuous responses. Let me make this perfectly clear: stop editing this page. You have done so much forumshopping on this, and you have refused to abide by consensus every time (as usual for you), that the next steps are to ask for a blanket topicban and if that doesn't work to have you banned both here and on enwiki. Roux (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wander back over to the current discussion about me - because we're sort of going in circles here. I dropped a note into your talk page, which you reverted, and I'm afraid I don't really feel that your asking me to stop editing here is right. Privatemusings (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, Commons does not censor content that is within project scope, including proposed guidelines and talk pages. You're demands for Privatemusings to "stop editing this page" and threatening to ban him could be considered harassment and should be reported to the administrator's noticeboard. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

small OTRS reword

I reworded the bit about integrating the OTRS system just a little bit - and am currently digging around commons to try and learn the policy on creating user 'essays' - which is something I might like to try in this area... Privatemusings (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to edit something that has been soundly REJECTED? Get over it already. Roux (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone's interested

I've written up a bit of a 'user essay' over at en - you can read it here if you'd like :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

foundation-l

there's a reasonably useful thread about this currently on foundation-l (I would say that - I started it.). Privatemusings (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)