Child erotica Options

[carbuncle]

A coincidental meeting of some of popular WR themes and characters?

Stillwaterising, known for some strong opions about the recent porn deletions on Commons and for obessively polishing the bio of professional deepthroat enthusiast Heather Harmon, has added an image of an adult female model to Child erotica. That image comes from the uploads of the prolific Commons porn uploader Max Rebo Band.

I have no good explanation for why Stillwaterising would be adding a picture of an adult female -- she is a Suicide Girls model, so at least 18 -- to an article about "child" erotica.

[dogbiscuit]

That girl needs to learn how to knit properly.

[GlassBeadGame]

A coincidental meeting of some of popular WR themes and characters?

Stillwaterising, known for some strong opions about the recent porn deletions on Commons and for obessively polishing the bio of professional deepthroat enthusiast Heather Harmon, has added an image of an adult female model to Child erotica. That image comes from the uploads of the prolific Commons porn uploader Max Rebo Band.

I have no good explanation for why Stillwaterising would be adding a picture of an adult female -- she is a Suicide Girls model, so at least 18 -- to an article about "child" erotica.

To the extent that the image is intended to depict (even with an adult model) child erotica it is, at a minimum, grossly inappropriate. If it is not intended as such a depiction it is irrelevant. In any case it should be removed from the article. Also wouldn't hurt anything to delete the image as having no educational value.

[dogbiscuit]

To the extent that the image is intended to depict (even with an adult model) child erotica it is, at a minimum, grossly inappropriate. If it is not intended as such a depiction it is irrelevant. In any case it should be removed from the article. Also wouldn't hurt anything to delete the image as having no educational value.

In the UK, the law on child pornography is so widely drawn that it would treat something intended to be perceived as child pornography as such, in the same way that drawings and altered photographs fall under the remit. It was a pragmatic response to just such attempts at getting around previous legislation.

[Stillwaterising]

I chose this image because it comes from a source that is 2257(e) compliant. I don't know how old this model actually is (however SG claims all models are over 18 at time of production), however it is not pornographic because it does not have show sexual conduct or "lascivious display" of genitalia. Use of an identifiable minor would be highly inappropiate so this image could be thought of as "simulated child erotica".

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[Subtle Bee]

Use of an identifiable minor would be highly inappropiate so this image could be thought of as "simulated child erotica".

So, this is your rationale, then?

[Moulton]

Maybe it's a "breaching experiment."

[EricBarbour]

Maybe SWR is trolling us. (Just a thought.)

[GlassBeadGame]

I chose this image because it comes from a source that is 2257(e) compliant. I don't know how old this model actually is (however SG claims all models are over 18 at time of production), however it is not pornographic because it does not have show sexual conduct or "lascivious display" of genitalia. Use of an identifiable minor would be highly inappropiate so this image could be thought of as "simulated child erotica".

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

[Stillwaterising]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

This is from the provisional posting rules:

Statement of principles

The Wikipedia Review is an open forum, and its moderators pledge to avoid the sorts of vindictiveness and subterfuge that characterize the so-called "Wikipedia cabal."

[GlassBeadGame]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

This is from the provisional posting rules:

Statement of principles

The Wikipedia Review is an open forum, and its moderators pledge to avoid the sorts of vindictiveness and subterfuge that characterize the so-called "Wikipedia cabal."

You are not entitled to dictate the parameters of discussion here. Your exploitation and disregard for children is reprehensible. Go fuck yourself.

[Kelly Martin]

The way you can tell that this is not Wikipedia, stillwaterising, is that GlassBeadGame hasn't banned you from posting, even though he has that authority. Being a scumbag isn't against the rules of this forum; neither is calling someone one, especially when the shoe fits.

[Stillwaterising]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

You are not entitled to dictate the parameters of discussion here. Your exploitation and disregard for children is reprehensible. Go fuck yourself.

Patently false. I've fought tirelessly against child exploitation by expanding Wikipedia's legal coverage on the topic. I'm also the primary author of the child pornography restrictions of Com:Sex (current and April 2010 pro 2257 version).

I've also started numerous anti-child porn DRs and threads such as ongoing brittsuza@Flickr mass DR. I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[GlassBeadGame]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

You are not entitled to dictate the parameters of discussion here. Your exploitation and disregard for children is reprehensible. Go fuck yourself.

Patently false. I've fought tirelessly against child exploitation by expanding Wikipedia's legal coverage on the topic. I'm also the primary author of the child pornography restrictions of Com:Sex (current and April 2010 pro 2257 version).

I've also started numerous anti-child porn DRs and threads such as ongoing brittsuza@Flickr mass DR. I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

I am limiting my consideration to the placement of an erotic image of a young woman with features physically consistent with those of a child (although purported to be an adult) into an article on "child erotica." This act was exploitative and irresponsible. You cannot expect to avoid condemnation in the strongest possible terms for this kind of act. I have no desire to be polite or welcoming to a person who did such a unconscionable thing.

Some of your other positions on WP may be better than this action but that in no way justifies your conduct.

[Kelly Martin]

I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This isn't Wikipedia. You may not divert attention from your own outrageous behavior by taking umbrage at others for being outraged at it.

[Stillwaterising]

I am limiting my consideration to the placement of an erotic image of a young woman with features physically consistent with those of a child (although purported to be an adult) into an article on "child erotica." This act was exploitative and irresponsible. You cannot expect to avoid condemnation in the strongest possible terms for this kind of act. I have no desire to be polite or welcoming to a person who did such a unconscionable thing.

Some of your other positions on WP may be better than this action but that in no way justifies your conduct.

Please consider the whole picture then. Please keep in the mind, and feel free to check the record, that I have NEVER uploaded an explicit image and this is the ONLY image of this type that I've inserted into an article. I did so to illustrate a point and bring awareness to this issue. I followed all laws and image guidelines. I did not intend to cause any disruption.

Maybe SWR is trolling us. (Just a thought.)

How could I be trolling WR if I didn't start this thread?

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[GlassBeadGame]

Please consider the whole picture then. Please keep in the mind, and feel free to check the record, that I have NEVER uploaded an explicit image and this is the ONLY image of this type that I've inserted into an article. I did so to illustrate a point and bring awareness to this issue. I followed all laws and image guidelines. I did not intent to cause any disruption.

The appropriate type of awareness that using an image of a physically immature young adult girl as a proxy for an image depicting actual child erotica is not pleasant discussion but outrage. This is the type of conduct heretofore limited to the seediest kind of pornography skirting the edge of the law as close as possible. This convinces me that whatever else you might have to say on the matter you lack the maturity to have any voice in editorial decisions relating to children.

[Subtle Bee]

I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

I don't think we have any sort of civility policy per se, and we're largely glad of it. I don't think anything GBG said comes close to "vindictiveness" or "subterfuge", though feel free to contradict me.

Please consider the whole picture then. Please keep in the mind, and feel free to check the record, that I have NEVER uploaded an explicit image and this is the ONLY image of this type that I've inserted into an article. I did so to illustrate a point and bring awareness to this issue. I followed all laws and image guidelines. I did not intent to cause any disruption.

Instead of, perhaps subconsciously, attempting to shift the focus with wiki-style getting offended about civilty, how's about you explain briefly why the hell you were thinking an article on "child erotica" required a picture?

[Moulton]

[Chagrined.]

[Stillwaterising]

Instead of, perhaps subconsciously, attempting to shift the focus with wiki-style getting offended about civilty, how's about you explain briefly why the hell you were thinking an article on "child erotica" required a picture?

Obstensibly, very few articles require images, however Commons has over 6 million or them and I had noticed this "boyshorts" image earlier in a discussion thread for Commons Talk:Sexual Content called Sexy Teenagers. I had started working on Child Erotica ten hours earlier as part of the newly created Dost test that I wrote initially to help define what kind of images of children (with children meaning any person under the age of consent by the legal definition) should be considered prohibited. Since this image is from SuicideGirls, and they do claim that all of their models are 18+ and claim to hold 2257 records, I thought this image may be a suitable to demonstrate what child erotica looks like without actually displaying a child.

A copy of this girl's drivers license and signed record keeping form with date(s) of photography should be held by SG's custiodian of records found at their legal page here. Please note, they can only be viewed by an US Attorney or law enforcement with a legitimate search warrant.

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[EricBarbour]

I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This isn't Wikipedia. You may not divert attention from your own outrageous behavior by taking umbrage at others for being outraged at it.

Nor can you "wikilawyer" around here, by quoting from "da roolz".
No workie. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

This isn't Wikipedia. You may not divert attention from your own outrageous behavior by taking umbrage at others for being outraged at it.

B-b-but I thought the "I'm offended that you're offended" defense was a huge hit around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

A copy of this girl's drivers license and signed record keeping form with date(s) of photography should be held by SG's custiodian of records found at their legal page here. Please note, they can only be viewed by an US Attorney or law enforcement with a legitimate search warrant.

In the UK, such an image could well still be illegal. Due to previous law being found to being difficult to enforce, with people working around the problem in exactly the way you have done, substituting drawings or models while still trying to create a particular image, more recent legislation bans such subterfuge.

You might then consider the Wikipedian argument that you cannot take into account all laws of all countries; this is usually code for not wanting to take into account laws in any country, and the only reason for compliance with US law is self-preservation rather than recognising the moral authority enshrined within the legal system. Think on this though. If it were determined that you personally were distributing child pornography as recognised by legislation in the UK, and your name became linked and recorded due to UK investigations, you might never be able to travel freely to Europe for fear of being charged with distribution of child pornography.

It is a fanciful but attractive image that Jimbo might be deported from the UK due to his role in the WMF tolerating such content, whether it is placed there by the evil or the naive.

[CharlotteWebb]

It is a fanciful but attractive image that Jimbo might be deported from the UK due to his role in the WMF tolerating such content, whether it is placed there by the evil or the naive.

Maybe Florence would like not having to fund his return ticket.

[Moulton]

It's as much a moral/ethical issue as a legal one.

As much as politicians try, there is good evidence that you simply can't legislate morality.

Then again, you can't legislate lamentations, remorse, or chagrin, either.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

It's as much a moral/ethical issue as a legal one.

Moral ... ethical ... and a simple one of marketing.

Who, and for what purpose, is the Wikipedia being marketed at?

Stillwaterising, I don't know. We have never crossed swords. On a very brief overview, you appear to be one of the "players" in this Wiki-porn drama.

What is your position and your take on it all?

To whom, and for what purpose, is the Wikipedia being marketed at and should the Wikipedia being marketed at?

As it is also being marketed at children and educational facilities, how do you think it should handle the Porn issue?


As a side note to others ... this has never really being raised before to my knowledge ... does anyone not suspect that the whole issue of Suicide Girls being fed into Flickr and then scrapped into Wikipedia not constitute as obvious advertising by the company being it?

SG is a company previous recently accused of exploitation, its male owner Sean Suhl accused of treating women poorly and failing to pay them, from which many models continue to leave.

Just to look closer at how Web 2.0 works "empowering" ordinary people into doing stuff for free ... the lead SG girl's blog which brought about the walks out and first voiced criticism, is here.

[carbuncle]

Obstensibly, very few articles require images, however Commons has over 6 million or them and I had noticed this "boyshorts" image earlier in a discussion thread for Commons Talk:Sexual Content called Sexy Teenagers. I had started working on Child Erotica ten hours earlier as part of the newly created Dost test that I wrote initially to help define what kind of images of children (with children meaning any person under the age of consent by the legal definition) should be considered prohibited. Since this image is from SuicideGirls, and they do claim that all of their models are 18+ and claim to hold 2257 records, I thought this image may be a suitable to demonstrate what child erotica looks like without actually displaying a child.

Leaving the question of why this article needs an image, why would you think that an image of a post-pubescent young woman would be a suitable substitute for one of a child? She clearly isn't a child, whatever doubts you may have about her age. Isn't "child erotica" much more likely to depict actual children? Wouldn't readers perhaps be mislead by your choice of an image into thinking that "child erotica" is a harmless charade by adults and not the deliberate sexualization of pre-pubescent children? Just curious about your thought process leading up to the inclusion of the image.

[Stillwaterising]

Leaving the question of why this article needs an image, why would you think that an image of a post-pubescent young woman would be a suitable substitute for one of a child? She clearly isn't a child, whatever doubts you may have about her age. Isn't "child erotica" much more likely to depict actual children? Wouldn't readers perhaps be mislead by your choice of an image into thinking that "child erotica" is a harmless charade by adults and not the deliberate sexualization of pre-pubescent children? Just curious about your thought process leading up to the inclusion of the image.

This was inspired by reading New York v. Ferber. In the actual text it says:

The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis. We consider it unlikely that visual depictions of children performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals would often constitute an important and necessary part of a literary performance or scientific or educational work. As a state judge in this case observed, if it were necessary for literary or artistic value, a person over the statutory age who perhaps looked younger could be utilized. Simulation outside of the prohibition of the statute could provide another alternative. Nor is there any question here of censoring a particular literary theme or portrayal of sexual activity. The First Amendment interest is limited to that of rendering the portrayal somewhat more "realistic" by utilizing or photographing children.

[One]

This was inspired by reading New York v. Ferber.

God, you're dense. The outrage here is not that anyone thinks what you've done is illegal in the United States. The problem is that you have no moral compass on this issue whatsoever.

Why the fucking hell is it good and proper to "demonstrate what child erotica looks like"?

That's why you said you posted the image, and I find your rationale mind-boggling.

This post has been edited by One:

[GlassBeadGame]

Leaving the question of why this article needs an image, why would you think that an image of a post-pubescent young woman would be a suitable substitute for one of a child? She clearly isn't a child, whatever doubts you may have about her age. Isn't "child erotica" much more likely to depict actual children? Wouldn't readers perhaps be mislead by your choice of an image into thinking that "child erotica" is a harmless charade by adults and not the deliberate sexualization of pre-pubescent children? Just curious about your thought process leading up to the inclusion of the image.

This was inspired by reading New York v. Ferber. In the actual text it says:

The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis. We consider it unlikely that visual depictions of children performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals would often constitute an important and necessary part of a literary performance or scientific or educational work. As a state judge in this case observed, if it were necessary for literary or artistic value, a person over the statutory age who perhaps looked younger could be utilized. Simulation outside of the prohibition of the statute could provide another alternative. Nor is there any question here of censoring a particular literary theme or portrayal of sexual activity. The First Amendment interest is limited to that of rendering the portrayal somewhat more "realistic" by utilizing or photographing children.

So SCOTUS made you do it? Well that's original. The above is a discussion that even given the courts reference to "scientific and artistic" uses almost always applies to the pornography industry. WP purports to some kind of encyclopedia. Pornographer achieve this end run to get content for viewer seeking to satisfy their desire to view images otherwise prohibited child sexual depictions by using "models" who appear to be children. Back away from from skirting the boundaries of law. To do otherwise makes you a Free Culture Scumbag of the first order.

[Moulton]

The problem is that you have no moral compass on this issue whatsoever.

This is the part that troubles me, as well. The law cannot possibly provide a moral compass. That's not the function of the law.

Which begs the question that One poses.

Where is your moral compass on this issue?

[Emperor]

It costs nothing to be polite.

[Larry Sanger]

I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This isn't Wikipedia. You may not divert attention from your own outrageous behavior by taking umbrage at others for being outraged at it.

Exactly. SWR's behavior is a textbook example of trolling behavior. Such behavior is essentially encouraged on Wikipedia by such insidious concepts as "assume good faith" and "wikilove" and other such cynical tools of Wikitrolling.

SWR, if you are really saying that what you've done is perfectly acceptable, then indeed as Mouton says, you have no moral compass. If you sincerely believe showing pix of "simulated child erotica" is OK, you're beyond polite conversation, and you have given up all rights to be treated with the ordinary sort of respectful deference that polite people accord to most people. This is just a fancy way of saying that since you've shown yourself to be a complete maroon, people are going to treat you like one, and you have no right to complain if people call you one, you maroon.

If, on the other hand, you know you've done something outrageous, and are merely "trolling for the lulz," then the same thing applies.

And if this is just a "breaching experiment," then you should say so here and defend it as such.

I totally respect Wikipedia Review's unmoderated nature. It's not for every online community (e.g., it's not for CZ), but it definitely has its place. But I wouldn't be here if WR did not also permit a forceful and honest response to idiocy and pathetic moral tone-deafness. I also wouldn't be here if I couldn't say "plonk" to people. Stillwaterising: plonk.

[Somey]

I was under the impression that Mr. Stillwaterising was one of those people who, shall we say, really really enjoys online porn (if not porn in general) and is willing to make whatever efforts or arguments are necessary to protect it, even if it means getting heavily involved with Wikipedia. I've looked at his contribution history and I suppose it could be said that he actually does want to keep a lid on child porn (at least the more blatant stuff), if only as a way to ensure the continued availability (if not growth) of adult porn. However, since he and the other WP'ers have largely failed in keeping said lid on, he's now trying to reconcile his past porn advocacy with recent arguments for morally responsible behavior WRT child-abuse imagery.

Am I at least in the ballpark here? I would agree that in his case, what might have been a "moral compass" does seem to have been replaced with a set of US legal citations, but then again, that's probably better than nothing.

Either way, the solution to this (if there is one) is probably not to find more subjects to write about that can potentially be illustrated with "erotic" images of underaged individuals, even if those articles are ostensibly about the abusive nature of such things...?

[HRIP7]

I was under the impression that Mr. Stillwaterising was one of those people who, shall we say, really really enjoys online porn (if not porn in general) and is willing to make whatever efforts or arguments are necessary to protect it, even if it means getting heavily involved with Wikipedia. I've looked at his contribution history and I suppose it could be said that he actually does want to keep a lid on child porn (at least the more blatant stuff), if only as a way to ensure the continued availability (if not growth) of adult porn. However, since he and the other WP'ers have largely failed in keeping said lid on, he's now trying to reconcile his past porn advocacy with recent arguments for morally responsible behavior WRT child-abuse imagery.

Am I at least in the ballpark here? I would agree that in his case, what might have been a "moral compass" does seem to have been replaced with a set of US legal citations, but then again, that's probably better than nothing.

Either way, the solution to this (if there is one) is probably not to find more subjects to write about that can potentially be illustrated with "erotic" images of underaged individuals, even if those articles are ostensibly about the abusive nature of such things...?

Hmm, I have to say that judging by a few deletion discussions, his work at the COM:SEX draft sexual content policy for Commons, as well as posts to the Foundation list, it would be ludicrous to accuse Stillwaterising of being an advocate for the presence of any kind of gratuitous sexual imagery on Commons, or in Wikipedia. Do him the courtesy of spending an hour looking at his Commons contributions, or even better, ask Max Rebo Band for his opinion on Stillwaterising.

Stillwaterising also happens to be the editor who introduced the reference to the Dost test (T-H-L-K-D) in the proposed Sexual content policy. Without that addition, there would have been nothing in the draft policy to prevent anyone uploading an image of an actual 12-year-old in that pose and attire.

I too am a little puzzled that he introduced the image, which was discussed at the COM:SEX talk page, into this article. I can only think that it was a case of so many people telling us that photos of women with small breasts are fine and that the image was fine on Commons that he tried to find an "educational use" for it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[One]

Am I at least in the ballpark here? I would agree that in his case, what might have been a "moral compass" does seem to have been replaced with a set of US legal citations, but then again, that's probably better than nothing.

That's undoubtedly true.

[Subtle Bee]

I appreciate that SWR did provide an answer to my question. To clarify, the issue for me is not anything to do with that particular picture, but with the editorial assumption that this particular article needed a picture, period. My view is emphatically "no!", and I dearly hope there are many other unsavoury topics that remain unillustrated, and I wonder if SWR disagrees.

Do "rape", and "castrati", and "infanticide" all profit from a picture? In the present case, if I know what a child is, and erotica, do I really need an ersatz picture to put those concepts together? Even when the picture is neither?

I think the answers are trivially obvious, and to the extent that SWR is concerned only with the legality of the picture, and not the greater question of why any picture at all, they seem to miss the boat. In fact, this illustrates one of the many recognized failings of the WP model, and I don't think I need to draw everyone a picture.

Also, I endeavour to remain polite and responsive, but the truth is that's beyond creepy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Somey]

Hmm, I have to say that judging by a few deletion discussions, his work at the COM:SEX draft sexual content policy for Commons, as well as posts to the Foundation list, it would be ludicrous to accuse Stillwaterising of being an advocate for the presence of any kind of gratuitous sexual imagery on Commons, or in Wikipedia. Do him the courtesy of spending an hour looking at his Commons contributions...

So you don't think the usual 20-30 minutes was enough? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I mean, taking Commons:Sexual Content as the primary example, this series of diffs (his first on the page, which had been started by Privatemusings) is clearly an attempt to water down the proposal in accordance with US-based legal strictures, which are obviously a lower standard than the kind of morality-based criteria that you'd find in just about any traditionally-published encyclopedia (unless it's an encyclopedia of porn, of course).

Anyway, I don't believe I said that he specifically advocated the inclusion of "gratuitous" pornographic content... I guess I'm just saying that he's arguing the pro-porn position by invoking US law in such a way as to lower the inclusion standards that were originally proposed. I'm just guessing about the "really really likes porn" part, but let's face it, that's a common characteristic of internet denizens, and not a crime either (in the vast majority of cases at least). I could claim that he's "wikilawyering" or something to that effect, but that term isn't normally used to describe what he's actually been doing. (Also, as always bear in mind that if it weren't for the lack of disclaimers and content-filtering META tags, not to mention the presence of child admins in general, I might be largely on his side in this particular controversy.)

As for the Deletion Review votes, I'm of two minds about that... True, he did vote to delete quite a number of images, but if you ask me, a lot of those votes were just no-brainers - the quality of those images as pornography was simply terrible. This one (NSFW), for example, is just worthless, both as a depiction of the act in question and as erotica or a means of titillation. If a professional porn photographer tried to pass photos (hey, more alliteration!) like that off as "erotica," he or she would be out of business in no time at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

All in all, I'm trying to take a middle ground here - I don't think he's as much of a pornmonger as some of the people on Commons, but in some ways his intelligence and rationality about it just makes him a much more effective obstacle to imposing morality-based standards. I'm sure my saying that will only encourage him, but either way, let's not try to paint him as one of the responsible ones - cleverness with words and a knowledge of US case law don't confer a sense of moral responsibility on anybody. (To some extent, the exact opposite may be true!)

I think the answers are trivially obvious, and to the extent that SWR is concerned only with the legality of the picture, and not the greater question of why any picture at all, they seem to miss the boat. In fact, this illustrates one of the many recognized failings of the WP model, and I don't think I need to draw everyone a picture.

Well, thanks for stating in one paragraph what took me four paragraphs, but he's really only "missing the boat" with respect to the general public (or at least most of us here on WR). As far as Wikipedia is concerned, he's building the damn boat.

[EricBarbour]

It costs nothing to be polite.

Of course. But try telling that to, say, Brian McNeil.
You'll probably have to loan him a few quid first. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[HRIP7]

Hmm, I have to say that judging by a few deletion discussions, his work at the COM:SEX draft sexual content policy for Commons, as well as posts to the Foundation list, it would be ludicrous to accuse Stillwaterising of being an advocate for the presence of any kind of gratuitous sexual imagery on Commons, or in Wikipedia. Do him the courtesy of spending an hour looking at his Commons contributions...

So you don't think the usual 20-30 minutes was enough? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I mean, taking Commons:Sexual Content as the primary example, this series of diffs (his first on the page, which had been started by Privatemusings) is clearly an attempt to water down the proposal in accordance with US-based legal strictures, which are obviously a lower standard than the kind of morality-based criteria that you'd find in just about any traditionally-published encyclopedia (unless it's an encyclopedia of porn, of course).

My recollection is that Stillwaterising nominated several dozen sexual images for deletion in the first half of May, and took a fair amount of abuse for it in Commons. Here is an example; here and here are others. I generally agreed with those deletion requests. I honestly don't ever recall Stillwaterising voting "Keep" on a naff sexual image.

I think his recourse to legal considerations was a response to the generally prevailing rather immature mindset that holds sway at Commons, as evident in the above deletion discussions he started (community consensus was against deleting any of those images). As someone said above, although respecting the law can't replace editorial judgment, it is better than nothing, and pointing to legislation increases the chance of the draft policy being accepted by the community.

But I have read his mind enough now and will leave it to him to explain himself to you, if he wants to.