Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:50, 8 December 2008

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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

See Misplaced Pages:Instruction creep. Durova 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 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 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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. 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

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

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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: Misplaced Pages:Profanity, Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles, Censorship, and Misplaced Pages:Options to not see an image

Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Misplaced Pages policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Privatemusings Opened on the summary grounds "disruption of the community by failing to accept consensus." Durova 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?

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 Misplaced Pages' project - which is very interesting, and seems to have done great work - to my mind it sort of begs the question 'is Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages:Profanity, Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles, Censorship, and Misplaced Pages:Options to not see an image

Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Misplaced Pages policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Misplaced Pages'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)

Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I have no problem with that, of course, but I don't think modifying a proposal in Misplaced Pages: is disruptive as long as he doesn't try to say its other than rejected (a la WP:TOV). Avruch 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 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 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:Misplaced Pages:Sexual content}} to User:Privatemusings/Sexual content that would let PM play with it and then maybe reshow it. MBisanz 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)

another page to review

• Misplaced Pages: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 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 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)

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 horses. Can we let any horse references drop now? Awesome, thanks. Avruch 03:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)