Risker,
The solution to the problem is entirely within the control of Commons - recategorize the image to "improvised vibrators" instead of "electric toothbrush" and you're done. I wouldn't dare do it myself, it would be the kinunderstandd of "provocative" activity from "someone who doesn't really Commons" that could result in my being blocked. I do understand that much about Commons and its culture.
I will respond to your last point first. I, as well as many other Commonists/Commoners/whatever, make ourselves available on IRC in #wikimedia-commons, and we often have people visiting the channel with queries on images. I recall only ever having seen you on two occasions in that channel, and I remember both occasions vividly, because I said g'day on both occasions, and assisted you.
The first occasion you brought to our attention a logo which was on Commons, and which was an obvious copyright violation. I proceeded to immediately delete the file, and explained to you that in future you can simply apply {{copyvio}} to the file in question and it would be dealt with. It's not because we don't mind people using IRC to bring files to our attention, because we don't mind at all, it's just that workflows on Commons in that area are dealt with pretty quickly, as this attests to,[1] and it would you to streamline your time as well.
The second occasion you brought to our attention a sexual image, and upon looking at it I immediately deleted it as being out of scope. I didn't bother taking it to DR, and have deleted literally hundreds of sexual images from Commons this way by using the discretion that the community places in admins. You were thanked for bringing it to our attention, and I told you not to hesitate to contact me directly if you should come across other such images in future, and I would review them, and deal with them as appropriate.
This just doesn't align with the "Commons and its culture" that you understand, does it? But ok, let's use an example which could result in an editor being blocked.
There was a thread on Gendergap which discussed some images on Commons.[2] As a result of this thread, an English Wikipedia Bureaucrat, and an only occasional admin on Commons, proceeded to mass delete the entire lot of images, many of which had been through a deletion request in the past, and some of which were in use.[3] As Pete Forsyth mentioned,[4] EVula showed utter contempt for Commons process and really should have gone through the de-admin process. How did that pan out?[5]
But of course, you, with a grand total of 303 edits on Commons going back to 2007 (most of which comprises of voting on Picture of the Year) are speaking from a position of experience when you say you understand Commons and its culture. So you'll excuse me, but it is a bit rich you saying that, and see your comments as insanely out of touch with the reality.[6] And, quite frankly, you should ensure your "own house" is in order, before making ill-informed judgments on project culture as you have made. Would you like me to provide a prime example of what I mean? And it is a most disgusting episode I can tell you, and list members would cringe with horror if they were to see this example. Tell me if you would like to hear the example, and I'll start a new thread on it. It could also generate discussion on an issue which afflicts our projects.
Now, Risker, the solution to the problem that you have described lies not in censoring Commons, which is essentially what you have suggested, but in what is written in the closure of the DR. Unfortunately, that would require some money to be spent on fixing the problem, and would stop anti-Commons tirades as we are seeing here and elsewhere.
It would appear that the WMF is more interested in spending money on having Indian students inserting copyright violations en masse on English Wikipedia[7] and other such nonsense. I do totally sympathise with the Indian students, however,[8] because I have contacted relevant people at the WMF on numerous occasions, but unlike the Indian students I have never received a response (usual for the WMF unfortunately).
I have been told that it might cost $10-20,000 to get someone to write code to implement the solution that sees varied support amongst different "camps",[9] (including support by a WMF Trustee) yet here we are, the WMF has $60+ million budgets, spends $1.5 million to fly the entire WMF staff for a junket to Hong Kong, and a host of other wasteful spending, and yet one of the most prominent issues on our projects is actively ignored.
You're close with the WMF Risker, why don't you lobby them for a solution as was pointed out in that DR closure? It would certainly go a huge way to fixing the problem if they would spend some real money on search and implement solutions that the community so direly requires.
Perhaps, finally, we can drop the the anti-Commons combative attitude as has been so prevalent in this thread, and other projects can work with Commons to give the WMF a firm kick up the behind, and help us to help you.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright_violations [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/subject.html (search for thread "[Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology") [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EVula/Archive-2013#Speedy_delet... [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... [5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EVula/Archive-2013#COM:AN.2FU [6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Russavia/userboxes/bullshit [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/Ind... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/Ind... [9] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_se...