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_dele…
[4]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Us…
[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/In…
[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/In…
[9]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_s…