Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 6

Wagon wheel pasta
Might Rotelle be a trigger, or would that be too far-fetched? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Considering it's an ostensibly rare condition subject to further study, I don't think it would be appropriate to speculate here. See WP:FORUM. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Lotus seedhead vs. just holes / just bumps / just seeds
For me, it is the COMBINATION of seeds with small bumps, placed within holes, that causes disgust and causes me to shudder and to want to "smoothen out" or if possible eliminate/crush the plant seed / object. (It's nothing extreme, but it does cause discomfort.) My point is: I think there should be more information on whether it is mainly the particular combination of spheres/balls/seeds within holes that cause irritation, and moreover balls/seeds with bumps within holes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.68.147 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We have to wait for WP:Reliable sources to cover that, if they will cover that at all. And per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS, it's best to avoid WP:Primary sources when we can (although primary sources for the "Society and culture" section isn't really an issue). But I do know that lotus seed imagery that only has an irregular pattern of holes also induces trypophobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then this article would not even exist in the first place. Scientists don't care about people with this condition right now, so the whole article should be deleted until there are "reliable sources". --2001:16B8:3147:D600:799C:C80E:1A6B:7C03 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are WP:Reliable sources on this topic, as the article shows, and the topic is WP:Notable. And sources on it do show that some scientists care about people with this condition right now. So your points are not valid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

iphone 11
I heard of this because of people claiming to be triggered by seeing the 3 camera lenses on the iphone 11. Photo (trigger warning!): 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussed under Society and culture referring to this BBC report. --Zefr (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Picture appropriate?
Is it appropriate that a user searching for this condition on Google and who has this condition will immediately have these images shown to them with out some kind of warning both in the search engine and on the wiki page? It's like showing a strobe on an epilepsy page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.184.207 (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we control search engines? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but we control what image we send back as a representative for other sites to embed (I can't remember the exact technical term right now; would need to look it up).  This came up not too long ago when it was found we'd just blindly send back the first image in a gallery of candidates in an election article – an undesirable behavior. So while I supported keeping the image in the recent RfC, I'd seriously consider if we should flag this page as having a potentially offensive lead image so as not to include it for embed data.  This would need to be technically supported (and I don't know the status of that), and might require some policy discussion, so it's not going to happen overnight, but it's not all that off-the-wall. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And re IP: no, it's not like showing a strobe to someone with epilepsy. I think you're being a bit disingenuous with your analogy there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP means that, for those with the condition, there is an unpleasant physiological response (more than just one in some cases) for a number of people who come across that image. As you know, this was discussed in the aforementioned RfC. But, yes, as also seen in that RfC, there was disagreement that it's like showing a strobe in the Epilepsy article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I found out about trypophobia earlier today, tested myself and found that I had a mild version.
 * I came to Wikipedia to find out more about the phobia, and I was pretty bloody annoyed to find that a picture that I find disgusting is at the top of the trypophobia page, before I can even read anything on the page, and with no warning or option not to view.
 * I wondered perhaps if it was a bad-faith editor who'd put it there, so the next thing I did was to check the arachnophobia page to see whether there was a picture of a spider there and it was considered OK to put an image likely to trigger phobia at the top of the page. There's a cartoon image of a spider that's very small and unthreatening, not a big close up picture of a spider's fangs, so I think we can safely say that the arachnophobia editors are more caring than the editors of this page.
 * No picture is better than that one. 80.5.1.134 (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tried to remove the picture for the reasons given above, but was reverted "due to consensus on the talk page".
 * I've read the talk page, and I don't see consensus here; it reads more like half-and-half to me.
 * How do we confirm consensus?
 * I'm new here; I've never felt the need to edit a wikipedia page before, but honestly this image makes me feel genuinely nauseous and distressed, and from reading the comments here it seems I'm not the only one. User08342 (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 5. You would need a large enough discussion to override the consensus from that widely attended discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. That discussion's seven years old, and I can't help but think of a whole bunch of other people who've come here wondering what trypophobia is since only to be smacked in the face by it.
 * I make the consensus there to be:
 * Keep in Lead and Collapse           11
 * Keep in Lead and do not Collapse    15
 * Keep in Lead no Collapse Preference  2
 * Keep in Lead but blurred             2
 * Keep in Lead and Enlarge             1
 * Move lower                           4
 * If I can't have Remove I'll add a vote for Keep in Lead and Collapse User08342 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad, four years old not seven. User08342 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

All I can add to this is that when I search trypophobia on Google, even without specifically swearching for images, I immediately see a collage of shock images far, far more disturbing than our lotus image. And no, SafeSearch doesnt change it at all .... the Google  algorithm hides people's private parts but nonsexual shock imagery is apparently OK. I think it is actually good that our image is making it into Google's search results, as it is far more mild than any of the others.

For whatever reason, DuckDuckGo's images were mostly honeycombs, which I dont find nearly as bothersome as the Photoshopped shock images that Google serves up ... but it made me realize that perhaps the images I see on Google are not the same ones that other people see. That said, I'm only mildly trypophobic and I was surprised to see some people recently repulsed by an image that I thought was quite tame. So, I can only speak for myself. — Soap — 14:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The shock images are often or usually of a lotus seedhead image photoshopped onto human skin or some type of replication of a lotus seedhead pattern in the form of human skin, though. This is because (like the Wikipedia article notes) lotus seedhead imagery will induce trypophobia in those who have it (and haven't somehow become desensitized to it) and even makes many who don't have it uncomfortable. To many, lotus seedhead imagery is the worst when it comes to trypophobia. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply. Maybe I've been desensitized after all and just didnt notice it .... I thought the lotus image was quite mild.  Anyway, I would be in favor of switching it out for something else if we can find an image that illustrates the characteristics of the phobia while being less disturbing to look at than what we have now.  — Soap — 21:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been desensitized as well, but lotus seedhead imagery (including the one we use as the lead image) and some other trypophobic imagery still affects me. I'd rather not rehash the big debate about the lead image. If using a lead image, I prefer the one that is there per the weight lotus seedhead imagery is given in reliable sources. I'd rather it not be replaced with bubbles (for example), which don't induce trypophobia nearly as consistently as lotus seedhead imagery does, or the other images that were proposed. I'd still rather the lead image be collapsed, but we've been over that, and a draw was the result. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the prompt reply again. I guess there's nothing to do here then ... Im not even sure of my original point anymore, if honeycombs are considered less of a trigger than lotus seed pods.  But Im  glad I posted here anyway, just to make sure that we're doing our best for our readers and editors alike.  — Soap — 22:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, as seen at Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 5 (for example, my "21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)" "23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)" post), I have supported going with a less triggering lead image, but also one that that isn't too weak with regard to representing the topic...as long as a gallery is lower in the article. But Doc James wouldn't get on board with not going with the lotus seedhead image as the lead image, and I also noted needing one or more academic sources that state that the replacement lead imagery (whichever one we were to go with) induces trypophobia. I also see that, in that discussion, I stated, "Out of honeycombs or bubbles, bubbles would be the safer choice."


 * Anyway, I'm just not at the point where I'm ready to delve into all of that again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A removal of the image was just reversed because of "consensus" in the discussion but I don't see any consensus. In what way is showing a triggering image to someone with a phobia any different from showing a strobing image to someone with epilepsy? And more importantly, what possible objection is there to putting the image behind a [show] button? Surely hypertext can save us. 03:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.54.47 (talk)
 * See Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 5 –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 03:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, though I admit that was a huge discussion compared to anything else I've seen and that asking to do it all over again might be perceived as disruptive. — Soap — 22:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

this same discussion was had with arachnophobia, and the "consensus" there was that no picture was better. why does this get a pass?KRISHANKO (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Arachnaphobia article now has a cartoon drawing of a (distant) practical joke toy spider being used by a child to scare his sister. That seems a lot less likely to trigger a phobic response in a Wikipedia user than a picture of a real living spider. Perhaps a useful guide to careful image use?2.31.162.119 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @KRISHANKO, I think the difference between this subject and arachnophobia is that everyone knows what a spider is, but not everyone knows what "a pattern of holes or bumps" means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Update
I can no longer find a single trypophobic image anywhere that affects me in even the slightest. This fear can be overcome. So if we at any point decide to add a gallery to the article after all, I will volunteer to go hunting around for fair-use or ideally free-use images that we can use. I think I'll always be able to tell which images of a set are the most illustrative of the fear, so that e.g. if a study just mentions strawberries, I'll pick a disturbing photo rather than a nice-looking one. — Soap — 22:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Soap, I know that you are trying to help. But we need to keep WP:Not a forum in mind. This talk page isn't for us to update others on our personal journey with trypophobia. Yes, as suggested in the article, exposure therapy may work for some people. I've noted before that it's somewhat worked for me on this matter. And by "exposure therapy" with regard for me, I simply mean looking at more trypophobic imagery myself, not any professional therapy. But is my trypophobia completely gone? No. And I highly doubt that it ever will be. Trypophobia is about more than just fear. When I see certain trypophobic images, I have an autonomic nervous system response. For me, that response is goose bumps/chills and sometimes a body shake. Being exposed to a certain image over and over again can make it so that one barely has such a response or no longer has such a response to that image (and perhaps similar images). But being exposed to more trypophobic imagery has also made me more aware of/sensitive to the existence of trypophobic imagery, noticing it in places I never noticed it before. So that is a downside for me when it comes to having been exposed to more trypophobic imagery. Really, I barely encountered it before. But now? I think about and/or see trypophobic imagery just about every day. Like I stated, a downside. In any case, we should let this section archive instead of commenting in it every now and then. I also know that you kept the matter somewhat on improving the article by again mentioning a gallery, but still. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion on picture appropriateness
Hi. I pushed the photo to the bottom of the page. Wikipedia articles should be informative without distracting elements such as a trypophobic photo that can trigger a sufferer of trypophobia while trying to read about trypophobia. For analogy, it's as insensitive as putting a graphic photo of a person harming himself on an article about suicide, which can be insensitive to survivors (both the victim and their relatives). Seeing such photos should be optional and not be used as lead photo. It's pretty common sense and just a matter of empathy. Azuresky Voight (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Azuresky Voight, so your opinion gets to override the opinion of many others? You're arguing for things one side argued already. Housing the image at the bottom is still a distracting element. How do you think trypophobic people are going to react when they reach the bottom of the page? Is your "Examples" heading supposed to warn them? Also, "Examples" looks like a blank section. I reverted you. Get consensus for your edit. Removing the image altogether is preferable, but the discussion shows voting was split. About 50/50. There was less agreement to collapse the image or tuck it away at the bottom of the article. Acidsetback (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favor of hiding the image. I'd even show up if we started another debate again ... but .... even though I said above that consensus can  change, there's a great reluctance to restart a discussion when the situation that prevailed during the previous discussion still remains.  And that is the case for us right now.    I suppose we're just going to have to link people to Help:Options to hide an image.   — Soap — 16:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There was clear consensus to keep the image in the lead, but no consensus to hide or collapse (see Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 5). Unless someone has new information to bring to the table that wasn't previously discussed (sourced info, data, statistics, etc), there's no reason to re-litigate being in the lead anytime soon. Hiding the image can probably be brought up in a new RfC though if an editor feels it's time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with having another discussion, or another RFC. I share @Soap's suspicion that the outcome would be the same, but if you want to do that, then I recommend asking for help drafting the RFC "question" at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks WhatamIdoing. Perhaps I should have clarified that the "there's no reason" comment above refers to the likelihood that a new RfC would produce the same outcome if nothing new is brought to the table, but that shouldn't stop any editor from beginning a new one if they feel the need to. I agree with your recommendation as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering about this for a few days. I looked up the arachnophobia article, and they've used a stand-in photo of a cartoon spider since 2007. Incidentally, a troll who had replaced several words in an article to "pedo" had changed the 14 year old standard to a picture of a bulging spider clinging to a sack of eggs. Curious.


 * Users here have repeatedly mentioned WP:CRD but not MOS:LEADIMAGE. The article doesn't actually need a lead image. We could easily move the picture toward the bottom, so that users who want to know where the phenomenon comes from can see it, but people who highlight the image from another page don't get a preview of the image which may be shocking (see WP:SHOCK). I would like to advise users about being too reactive about trigger warning culture, as thinking about the welfare of readers is not a new concern for Wikipedia editors. I'd like to ask, if Wikipedia's policy against censorship applies to any and all uses of an image, and insists that whatever users conceive of as the lead image must go there, why don't all articles on mass shooters lead with the perpetrators face? Why not use an image of real humans in the lead for anal sex? It seems to me that the difference, in this case, is a lack of concern for the users this article's lead image might offend.


 * Looking at the RfC that GoneIn60 mentioned has raised a few concerns for me. I didn't see clear concern for users within that discussion on the side of the opposition, with several users only giving that the condition was uncommon. One user, alarmingly, mentioned 4chan and that forum's views on interracial marriage to discuss the non-universality of norms. I had already suspected that 4chan has something to do with users adding "triggering" and gore images to leads in articles, and Wikipedia users referring to members of that group as "the crew" gives me pause. It looks like user:Soap was recently accused or implied to have vandalized a page on a Jewish religious practice, which is also well within the 4chan political purview (see: edit logs). The reverting editor, on your talk page, doesn't seem to believe you acted in good faith. Is this a coincidence and/or misunderstanding? I'm just a little suspicious of activity on this page at this point. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "The article doesn't actually need a lead image. We could easily move the picture toward the bottom..."
 * 32 out of 33 editors who weighed in disagree. They !voted to keep it in the lead, even when presented with the option to move it further down. Many referenced the educational value and the image's ability to describe the pattern of holes in a way that cannot be easily replicated in prose. There was also concern that moving it down would cause a significant portion of readers to possibly miss the image altogether.
 * "It seems to me that the difference, in this case, is a lack of concern for the users this article's lead image might offend."
 * That wasn't my take. Some questioned the seriousness of the condition both directly and indirectly, and yes, that may seem like a lack of concern on the surface. However, others weighed the positives (lead presence) against the negatives (risk of harm), with many concluding the benefits likely outweighed the risk, which to this day is still unknown (correct me if I'm wrong). The landslide !vote to keep it in the lead may further indicate the risk is very minimal to begin with.WP:LEADIMAGE, by the way, doesn't really forbid the use of shocking images. It only suggests using the least shocking alternate available that editors can agree on when that's an option. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't reference the amount of users who weighed in on that RfC as evidence that there's nothing wrong here. As far as I understand, those users didn't come here via independent review, but were called from active users on the page, as is usual practice. Is that right? You seem to be referencing a non-random and invested sample as support for the near-universality of an opinion. I came here to initially stop vandalism which was in favor of removing the imagine, but now my opinion that the image should stay has faltered. I think an independent review would be less unanimous than an RfC, and I think we should call one. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what process or path of escalation you are suggesting, but an WP:RFC is a proper form of dispute resolution used to gather feedback from the Wikipedia community. It is not limited to only "active users on the page". When invoked, it is published in a central location that often attracts the attention of uninvolved editors that had nothing to do with previous conversations or contentious edits. The outcome of the previous RfC is legit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, I've never been called in to one which I wasn't actively editing. Do you think the RfC tag draws in only uninvested users? I imagine, like all tags on Wikipedia, the ones for which people have knowledge and an interest get the most attention first. Indeed, 32 users is a lot for an RfC, and the fact that none of them agreed with the user who posted the request is concerning, as I see the distinction they drew as being more a matter of opinion rather than concrete policy. I don't think there's any reason to suggest that any process has no problems, and calling it "legit" seems defensive of that process. For one thing, Wikipedia is well known for having a problem with being mainly occupied by white, middle-class, Western, able, men; a fact referenced by almost all the candidates in the Wikimedia foundation board elections. As such, you noted that ableism (doubting, by reference to norms alone, that an academically documented condition exists) was a feature of that discussion. The inclusion of those types of argument was a problem because of its bias, which to me implies the possibility that most of the 32 users involved were biased enough to effect the result of the RfC.


 * I thought there was a process where administrators review a disputed article. I know there's DRN, but maybe I'm thinking of "THIRD," but I don't think that could be used here.


 * Also, I'd like to say I think your selective quote of my post in the above comment makes my statement look more one-dimensional than I intended. For example, you addressed that there wasn't a literal complete lack of concern for the wellbeing of others in the RfC. The point of my sentence was that the difference in concern for the topic compared to other pages which do incorporate WP:SHOCK, was that the majority of users there showed a lack of concern for people who have experienced trypophobia. By cultural bias, people have a bit more sympathy for people who are afraid of spiders and don't want to see full-on anal sex than they do some unknown condition, which, as I meant to say, is why, in my opinion, those articles still implicitly censor their content. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I am one of the uninvolved editors that participated in the RfC, and no, not ALL editors who participated are necessarily uninvolved. I was merely stating how the process works and that its primary goal is to draw in outside opinion to help settle disputes. RfC outcomes generally hold up well when the level of participation is significant, as it was in this case. The RfC process, while effective, is not perfect of course. Occasionally issues arise that may require review. Personally, I'm not seeing an issue with the way this RfC was conducted or closed, but if you dispute the outcome or the way this one progressed, there are challenge options available at your disposal. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Considering your posts are ignoring nearly every point I'm talking about and rehashing that you believe in the democratic process of Wikipedia, I don't agree with the the assessment that you're uninvolved. It's clear to me that you're arbitrarily standing with the decision and not discussing the points I raised about it. You're simply saying that you "don't see it" for the second post in a row. That's not an analytical response.


 * I asked the 33rd user, the one who voted to remove the image, and they seem to believe (without mentioning my stance, ideas, or any encouragement from me) that the RfC result was caused by a sampling error among biased users, similar to what I've been saying. They said that users who would have voted against the image would not have come to this page, specifically people with Trypophobia. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * My posts go right to the heart of the matter, which is this... You feel that there are problems with the RfC, either with its sampling of participants, its closure, or both. I wanted to let you know where you could go to contest it, and I also needed to correct your misinterpretation that RfCs only sampled involved editors. You are now armed with the information you need, so I have accomplished what I set out to do.I don't care to drill any further into your complaints with you, because frankly, I think it would be a waste of time, especially now that you are falsely accusing me of being involved. There's also a better venue for contesting as I've mentioned. This is where I leave you. Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You're now misrepresenting both your stance on and your "contribution" to this discussion. You are an involved editor, you are still here, you have a distinct view on the situation, and are still participating in the page daily, three years later. Tell me to go to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not a direct solution to what I'm talking about. There's nothing closed to reopen. RfC is not a binding arbitration, the closure or reopening of which warrants appeal. The discussion is ongoing, and yet you and several users here are treating the RfC as if it is the final word. As far as I understand, that's not how it works. Don't tell me I'm wasting your time when you tried to send me on a wild goose chase. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Participating in the page daily? Doesn't really look that way. Please stop assuming bad faith on the part of other contributors. Pages sit on people's watchlists well after discussions they're involved in have passed. It doesn't mean they have some personal stake in the article. The RFC is the final word until and unless another consensus emerges. You're more than welcome to try to create that consensus, but bad faith accusations against other editors is not the way to start. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would add that it seems clear GoneIn60 was saying they were uninvolved when they participated in the RfC. I don't see any reason to doubt this is the case since their first edit to this page was to that RfC [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trypophobia&diff=865971173&oldid=865970809], and their only edit to the article was this vandalism reversion this year [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trypophobia&diff=1027562626&oldid=1027561938]. Whether Gonein60 can still be considered uninvolved seems completely irrelevant to the point being made. Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * other than with arbcom elections and similar things, there's no democratic process on Wikipedia. WP:RFCs are specifically not supposed to be democratic just like with any other assessment of consensus. While polls are generally a part of RfCs, people cannot simply vote in an RfC, as any arguments which go against our policies and guidelines will be ignored. However they can help gauge how the community feels we should apply them to a specific situation Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thought I was done here, but I felt the need to respond after noticing the ANI discussion.
 * "I was told I could use WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to reopen the RfC." No, no you weren't. The reason I suggested CLOSECHALLENGE had to do with your concerns that bias may have impacted "the result of the RfC", as you put it, along with your observation that participants were stating "opinion rather than concrete policy". Together, these indicated that you had a procedural issue surrounding the nature of the close, hence the reason I directed you to CLOSECHALLENGE. Had you read the instructions under Challenging other closures, you would have known that the "review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute", and that contacting "the editor who performed the closure" was a prerequisite before escalating to ANI. Performing that step would have likely saved you from the alleged "wild goose chase".
 * "... and I think was an attempt to reinforce the binding nature of the original RfC." This persistence of assuming bad faith is beginning to encroach casting aspersions. Moving forward, I suggest you at least do the courtesy of pinging editors to discussions where you intend to call their character into question.
 * Thankfully, this discussion has moved beyond this stage. May this serve as a footnote for any future editor that stumbles here from ANI (or WT:MED now apparently). --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your attention, but I am confident that the post on my talk page has nothing to do with this issue or with 4chan .... it's merely a very low-traffic article, and that's why it took me two years to make the edit, and another year for someone to revert it. — Soap — 13:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's a point of interest to me who edits and populates articles and why. If we collect users in an article who all share a common opinion or background, we shouldn't be surprised when their views are unanimous. But I'm glad that edit was a mistake, and sorry to see that the reverting user assumed you acted in bad faith. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment is about "offensive" images. I have two unrelated points that may be useful in helping people discuss this subject:
 * If you're familiar with the six basic emotions (mad, sad, glad, afraid, surprised, disgusted), this subject is about Disgust. Being offended is about being angry.  I don't think our primary concern should be that people will be angry (i.e., "offended") that there is an image in the article.  We could predict (and have seen on this talk page) some "Ugh – make it go away!" comments, but we don't see many "How dare you!" reactions.  I'd therefore recommend that editors discussing this focus less on the potential for people to be offended; making people angry is a common enough concern in general life, but it's not the main problem with this subject.
 * The reason that articles about sex acts normally feature drawings is the same reason that anatomy articles normally lead with drawings: drawings for such subjects are more representative of the general case, and photos tend to be more representative of the individual differences.  Real-world bird identification books do the same, for the same reason.  In other words, in those subjects, it is more educational to use drawings than to use photos.  It may happen in the case of anatomy articles that some people find the drawings less disgusting, and in the case of sex acts that the drawings provoke fewer angry/offended comments, but the reason for the practice is the improved educational value.  The only policy-related basis for deciding whether to include or exclude an image is editors' best judgment about what serves to educate the reader.  We have no policy-related basis for using a photo rather than a drawing in this article – we could crop a line drawing such as this one instead of using a photo – but since the drawing would need to be equally (or more) representative of the problem, making the change from a photo to a similar drawing is IMO unlikely to result in a significant emotional change for the readers.
 * I hope that this information will be helpful by making it easier for editors to discuss the subject more clearly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with WhatamIdoing that discussion needs to focus on the specific issues of this article. Personally AFAIK I've never participated in any discussion about this before, and I'm sympathetic to the concerns and options to deal with them. However comparisons to arachnophobia don't help convince me, since my first thought with such comparisons I expect one of the reasons is because we're assuming most readers don't need a picture of a spider to understand what people with arachnophobia are affected by because they already have a decent idea what spiders look like. By comparison it seems likely many may have trouble visualising what can trigger trypophobia without an image. I had a quick look in the previous RfC and sure enough I saw people making the same point. Likewise comparisons to drawings vs photos in sex act related articles just seem flawed. I suspect most people are going to feel the same, so continuing these lines of argument are IMO unlikely to be productive. At most they can be used to say we do consider such issues. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I didn't mean to appear to be hinging on the photos/arachnophobia comparison, but it does describe that we take WP:Shock into account, whereas several users in the original RfC seemed to imply that WP:Censor must always take precedent. Any thoughts on the comparison of photos of mass shooters or other disturbing incidents? I'm pretty that such total exclusion is deliberate and based on media-centric advice that such people shouldn't be promoted, which is at least a mild censorship in action.
 * One problem I'm having is figuring out just how impactful I should consider persuasive comments in that RfC. Does the most common argument bear more weight? I realize it isn't a vote, but some opinions seemed more eclectic than others. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need to see a photo of an individual perpetrator's face to understand what an article about a mass shooting is about.  (Also, in practice, we don't usually have free photos of perpetrators.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * About how to weigh arguments: There is no single system prescribed.  Generally, you are looking for arguments based on policy/guidelines ("WP:POLICYNAME indicates that we should..."), arguments based in common sense ("I'm confused by the proposed wording, and I think it would be clearer to say..."), and the overall views of editors (if the results are 10 to one in one direction, then the one editor is very likely to lose – although there are instances in which the lone editor will win, especially if the lone editor's argument is extremely strong).
 * I haven't looked back at the old RFC, but from what I remember, it is very likely that the decision made aligned with the views of the editors who participated in making the decision. Any person is free to disagree with their decision, but I don't think we could get it overturned as wrongly summarized; the way past that is to have the old discussion replaced by a new discussion (if you thought there was a realistic chance of getting a different decision this time, which I frankly doubt).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask you, IronMaidenRocks, why you think all except one of the users who participated were corrupt participants? Half voted to collapse the photo out of concern for sufferers, and some of them went up against those who didn't seem to care for sufferers or thought of the condition as probably false, but you describe everyone except for one as cruel and biased. What gives? I think it's a shame that so many wouldn't even vote to hide the photo, but I don't think most of them were intentionally being cruel. Acidsetback (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That might not be the most productive line of inquiry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the entire process looks to have been deeply flawed. I think the user who voted in favor of removing the image also had their biases, though they had good intentions. Many users who voted to keep the image had good intentions, but ultimately were unable to reach a best practice scenario and were to some extent guided by groupthink and systematic biases. I even think the idea of hiding the image was misguided, as it violates WP:Printable and is not a good compromise on censorship concerns. In my opinion, removing the image would have reflected a stylistic and policy choice, not censorship. Hiding the image in a box could have easily been interpreted as censorship, though I think the actual nature of hiding the box is more complicated than that. Specifically that taking measures to protect users from physical harm is not intended to censor material. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, Wikipedia editors normally assume that everyone has "good intentions". People in that discussion seemed to have different values.  Some well-intentioned editors might value the comfort of affected readers more than educational benefits, and other well-intentioned editors might value the education benefits more than the comfort of affected readers, but all of the editors are well-intentioned.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The basis for IronMaidenRocks's objection to the polling hinges on his opinion that it was corrupt. They put it all out there. So my question was fair. I thought of it as a productive question if they could be convinced to stop putting bad faith on all of the participants except for one. They've now conceded that it wasn't a bunch of cold-hearted people.
 * IronMaidenRocks, I think WP:Printable could be solved by the person uncollapsing the image and then printing it. Don't quote me on that. I did see a few bad-faith actors in the polling discussion, but I mostly don't agree with your assessment of the voters and process. I think we should just get away from discussing it because your opinion is that removing the photo was the only satisfactory option, and those who didn't choose your option were either misguided or cruel. But your assessment is just not how polling works. Voters can be misguided, biased, cruel, sure. But for several reasons, I agree with others that you've misinterpreted the whole situation. Acidsetback (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that I almost always lead with "I think some people believe," "I think," "it seems to me," "my interpretation is." As far as I know, I have never told someone what they think and what they are arguing definitively. I would have appreciated the same consideration in return. And, no, I think your stated perception of my opinion is disturbing and inaccurate. For one thing, I said that I thought the best course of action was to move it to the bottom of the page, remove it, or replace it with another trypophobia image. Second, there is no voting process. Although, it's accurate enough to say that I think people who chose to not do anything about reducing harm caused by the image were misguided or cruel. I don't think people would make decisions which cause or allow other people to experience physical and emotional harm otherwise. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're on record saying you think "white, middle-class, Western, able, men" and ableism were issues with the polling. You also said, "I asked the 33rd user, the one who voted to remove the image, and they seem to believe (without mentioning my stance, ideas, or any encouragement from me) that the RfC result was caused by a sampling error among biased users, similar to what I've been saying." You then made accusations of bad faith there, by suggesting 4chan users populated the polling and saying things like "I reached out to the one user who disagreed with the RfC decision to keep the image, User:Pengo, and they seem to believe that the RfC decision was made out of bias and cruelty. I agree with that. I'd also note that this is not the first time the article has been the object of ableist bias" and "I think the suggestion that there are so few Trypophobia sufferers that their harm or avoidance of the page is justified because some people might become 'educated' through seeing the picture, an argument which was a leading contention in the RfC for 'keep photo' supporters, seems inappropriate and downright barbaric."


 * You said all of that and more, offending the user GoneIn60 and other users, and several users said you were casting aspersions and bordering on personal attacks. Here and here, on two different users' talk pages, you even accuse me of mocking you, others being against you, and then you changed the headings of your report to say "Users engaging in disruptive/unbecoming behavior in Talk:Trypophobia discussion." I count one user (you) who's been engaging in disruptive/unbecoming behavior at Talk:Trypophobia. Do you expect me to follow you to these pages where you dinged me with an alert so that I know you're talking bad about me and cause as much disruption as you've caused? I won't. You said all of that, and now you say my stated perception of your opinion is disturbing and inaccurate. Prefacing some of what you said with "I think some people believe," "I think," "it seems to me," "my interpretation is" doesn't change the offense you caused and ignorance you've shown. At least own what you said. And when you say "voted to remove the image" and "the process", you should expect someone to say "voting process". Acidsetback (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the very last time I'm discussing anything with you. For one thing, not assuming good faith in the process of Wikipedia is not against the rules. I don't have to believe that the poll was unbiased. Second, it's a known fact that Wikipedia has issues with systematic bias due to its low diversity. Did you look at the article I linked to when I made that claim? There's much more in secondary sources and on Wikimedia about this as well. Third, saying that I believe you were mocking me to an administrator when I was requesting their opinion on a perceived behavioral issue is not against the rules. On the other hand, your behavior of following me to multiple talk pages is not appreciated and constituted WP:TALKFORK. Fourth, at least one user in the RfC admitted they were a 4chan user in a very disturbing way. Why does that make you defensive? 4chan users are known to gaggle to the same places, so why wouldn't I wonder if they had brigaded a page about a mental condition? That's well within their MO. Fifth, I'm sorry, but you are not acting in good faith in saying that I am the only disruptive user here. We've got someone here who posted a picture to troll the discussion and misrepresent my position, and your replies completely ignored that. Your one-sided repeated tone policing ignores, as I've said in one of the discussion forks that you made, that rules apply to other people besides me. The abusive, and frankly, distressing nature of this discussion has repeatedly placed me on the ropes, having to defend myself without referencing the behavior of other people. No, we're not going to unequally apply standards here. Finally, no, that I called individual calls of 'keep' or 'remove' 'votes' does not mean that there's a "voting process" whose authority should not be questioned or else constitute bad faith.
 * Do I have to bolden and write in capital letters that you said "YOUR OPINION IS THAT REMOVING THE PHOTO WAS THE ONLY SATISFACTORY OPTION, AND THOSE WHO DIN'T CHOOSE YOUR OPTION WERE MISGUIDED OR CRUEL."? This, to me, is the ultimate expression of bad faith. You're here accusing me of having an irreversible bias that moots my participation in further discussion. This is a classic example of poisoning the well. Your statement there not only assumes my opinion, but tells me what my opinion is. That such a thing was my opinion was news to me. And, yet, you're discussing my behavior. Right. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I logged off, and then logged back on just to say this: Many people know about Wikipedia's systemic bias. You did far more than imply that played a role, and the Wikipedia bias spoken of in citations is usually about a gender bias rather a white or ableist bias. What you said is out there for anyone to digest and analyze. The least you could do is own up to it rather than sugarcoat it and say how you characterized users like GoneIn60 is okay because you used the words "I think" and "seems" (not even most times). No one said you can't have your opinions. It's how you've expressed those opinions and characterized things that's been the problem. Multiple users have said this to you. But now you want to play the victim. It's frustrating discussing anything with you because you falsely state things and are overly emotive. Just now you falsely claimed I followed you to multiple talk pages. I went to one user talk page you went to, the one you advertised going to at a noticeboard. The user who closed your thread essentially told you that you can't police who comments where. No more discussion with you is needed on my end. Continue down the path you're on at your own peril. Acidsetback (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"trypophobic shapes"
Trypophobia would be the reaction caused in the person by the shapes. The shapes themselves ould be trypophobia-producing shapes (or some such phrasing). --142.163.195.221 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd argue "trypophobic pattern" would be more appropriate, as the "shape" is just a hole, but there is some commonality between the patterns causing the reaction (holes of identical or indeterminate depth, holes in a relatively homogenous material usually with a surface plane perpendicular to the holes, low distance between holes relative to hole width, etc.) that could be described with a term like you suggest. InkTide (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the original poster is arguing over grammar ..... it's the old vegetables are healthy argument .... from a purely logical standpoint they have a case, because a shape is an inanimate object, and cannot have a fear of itself ... but we use    adjectives   attributively all the time in other situations.  Besides healthy vegetables, we also talk about sad movies, unfortunate situations, and so on ...  I held off from commenting earlier, but I think the current phrasing is the best one.  — Soap — 13:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead Image Follow-up: Asking a researcher and other concerns
Perhaps we could ask a researcher on the subject to select an image which describes what a trypophobia image looks like but has the least chance of creating an adverse reaction. This would more holistically comply with WP:Shock, especially considering there is controversy surrounding the current image. My impression from some statements by users on on this page and the RFC is that there's some fascination with the sensation the picture causes in them. I believe that sensation may constitute some or much of the educational value described for that specific picture. If that's the case, I would counter by saying that the focus of educational value in an image should be understanding of the article's content, not imparting a feeling. Secondarily, I think the picture is merely an image featured prominently in one study and is not singularly descriptive of the condition. Otherwise, I would ask why this picture in particular is so important that it has to be the lead image. Also, I would say that "disgust," in reply to WhatamIdoing is also not a completely proper term, as disgust does not usually cause panic attacks or other extreme reactions such as vomiting. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've contact one psychologist about the above, and also asked them to review the page for comment. Will try others if no reply is made in a few days. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Extreme disgust certainly does cause extreme reactions, specifically and especially including vomiting. That fact is the basis for a whole category of non-lethal weapons.  Evolutionary psychologists claim that this protects humans against infectious diseases.  That is the meaning of the bit in the lead that says "researchers hypothesize that it is the result of a biological revulsion that associates trypophobic shapes with danger or disease".  If it isn't clear that "biological revulsion" means "feelings of disgust", then we should probably re-write the lead to use simpler language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, they call it disgust because there is no other name for it. Do other disgust reactions cause panic attacks from a singular stimuli? This isn't merely a feeling of disgust, but is an observed and unique condition.
 * The picture currently in the article is part of a series of photos taken by a long-time Wikipedia editor about the plants in the Adelaide Botanic Garden. If it has appeared in a journal article, then that may be evidence of the researchers taking it from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have to find the study I'm talking about sometime, but I read a few studies on the condition, and there was a clear narrative that a picture of this or a similar kind of plant was used to induce the condition in a seminal study. That the picture was taken by someone doesn't tell us whether the picture or the study came first. To say that researchers are using Wikipedia as a basis for study is a jump in logic if you're basing that on the plant alone. And what relevance does that have for the discussion? I'm pretty sure the study in question was from 2008, but again, I'll need to find it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about your proposed concept for an image. I don't think it works.  Look at it this way:
 * Article: Some images produce intense feelings of disgust in some people.
 * Image: But I've been carefully selected to not produce any of those feelings!
 * Showing an image that was chosen because it doesn't produce feelings is a poor way of illustrating that images can produce feelings. I think it would be misleading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * IronMaidenRocks, the page says there's been very few studies. If a photo of a lotus seed pod "is not as important to the condition", then why did it, as you say, feature prominently in one study? Why was it said in older discussion it's frequently used to detect trypophobia? Why are trypophobia trolling photos usually of the pods (or, other times, tripe/cow stomach)? According to citations on the page, some non-trypophobics have also reacted strongly to seeing a lotus seed pod. So is it used to weed out true trypophobia? Can a photo that has "the least chance of creating an adverse reaction" be used to test for trypophobia since it'd catch a much smaller net? Is it the most educational? Acidsetback (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? Because this plant is effective at inducing the condition in people susceptible to it. Your illustration with "Image: But I've been carefully selected to not produce any of those feelings!" Is unhelpful as it doesn't clearly say what you mean. To me, this concern about the image being carefully selected to not cause trypophobia only reinforces my thinking that some users want to induce the trypophobia feeling in others. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they want to illustrate in a visual medium the visual stimuli that is being discussed. It is significantly more clear than trying to explain through text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Acidsetback implied with "[choosing an image] because it doesn't produce feelings is a poor way of illustrating that images can produce feelings." that the goal was to induce feelings. A Wikipedia article doesn't need to cause feelings in readers; how it feels doesn't need to be communicated through in text. That seems like shock media to me, similar to the old "how did you feel when the shooting started?" question. Also, even though I've been accused of it several times myself, it's not accurate to homogenize user views to "what they want is..." --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You said my thinking that some users want to induce the trypophobia feeling in others. I replied that they want a visual representation. Now you're saying it's not accurate to homogenize user views to "what they want is..." after having just done that.


 * There are a lot of images that don't cause a response in people with trypophobia, but none of those images would provide a visual explanation to the reader of what is being discussed. All the pictures of coyotes in the world won't provide the information that a single image of something may trigger a response in some people with trypophobia. We can have one image that explains the issue, or we could have hundreds of millions of pictures captioned "This isn't it" so eventually a reader can build a mental image of what might be the actual fear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a pretty clear distinction between saying I think some people are arguing this way so that I can argue against it, and telling someone not to argue a certain way because nobody thinks that way, which is how I interpreted your response. No, I'm not suggesting using a substitute image as a stand-in for something that would be descriptive of Trypophobia. I'm suggesting getting a recommendation from someone who has studied the condition for a photo which is less likely to create a strong reaction, while still communicating what a trypophobia photo looks like.
 * I'm taking a break from this discussion until I hear back from an expert. I've also contacted an administrator for what I believe is disruptive behavior on this page and surrounding pages. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to this, you're mistaken. They're not an admin. If you think there is an issue with disruptive editing you should probably take it to WP:ANI, but I suggest you don't. Last time uninvolved users were already mentioning a boomerang. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't understand why they let non-admin users close ANIs, considering the page is made for administrators. I'm looking for an administrator's opinion without being swarmed by non-admin users because of the nature of my request, like last time. If you think I've done something to be banned from Wikipedia after 14 years of service, because you think I was being rude to you, please open one yourself instead of threatening me. Thanks. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Try this user script. Makes it easier to identify user levels and contributions. It also shows the last time they edited. The admin you just picked last edited three months ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say, "Showing an image that was chosen because it doesn't produce feelings is a poor way of illustrating that images can produce feelings. I think it would be misleading." That was a different user. Pay attention to user signatures.
 * As for disruption, bad-faith accusations on this page, on a noticeboard, and across multiple user talk pages, about the voters and additional users is disruptive. Challenging bad-faith accusations, as several users (myself included) have done, isn't being disruptive. It's not productive if it keeps going, and that can then be disruptive, but I'm hoping you're done with the bad-faith accusations. You've gotten explanations and advice from people about why the polling went the way it did, why the photo is used, and why new polling isn't likely to change anything. If you want to pursue this anyway, no one can stop you, but I think you should drop it. Acidsetback (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * About disgust or fear, disgust is apparently the primary emotion, but the information in the cite for it on the page reveals a large majority when using a "mostly disgust" category and reveals this number drops by much when using an "only disgust" category. The team that studied whether disgust or fear affects people more said "60.5% reported mostly disgust when confronted with clusters of holes, while 11.8% reported only disgust, 5.1% reported mostly fear, while 1% experienced only fear, and 21% experienced the same amount of fear and disgust." So maybe the new words on the page should say "Most affected people mainly experience disgust but not fear when they see trypophobic imagery. A minority of people experience the same level of fear and disgust, and a few express only disgust or fear." This is more accurate if the study holds up because most people experience fear with the disgust, but the disgust is much stronger. Acidsetback (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with disgust being used in the article, but was responding to WhatamIDoing who said, in reply to me, that the image isn't causing offense but disgust. I used the word offensive in reference to WP:Shock's wording. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was said by anyone that the photo doesn't cause offense. Anyway, I commented on the disgust thing for accuracy. Acidsetback (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As a bit of a compromise, wouldn't it make sense to at least move the current image to the "Causes" section rather than the lead? After all the image illustrates a cause of trypophobia, not trypophobia itself. Nosferattus (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. A few users have already objected that it would make little difference to move the picture because people who have the condition will still be triggered if they see it if they scroll down. I have a few objections to that, but my primary concern is that when you highlight the wikilink for Trypophobia in another article, or if it appears as a preview on a website or social media post, you're going to see the image even more clearly than it appears in the article. If we move the image out of the lead, if I understand how this works correctly, it won't appear in previews. Long story short, it will make a difference for some readers. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with any attempt to move the image, because it's purpose in the lead is well-served. It helps users quickly understand the cause of the phobia, and is small enough that any editor not wishing to see it can avoid it if they like. Should we consider using a collapse or similar formatting trick? Those are typically not used in mainspace, but there can always be an exception. Wouldn't help mobile users, but would help the large fraction of users browsing on desktop. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can confirm that it does invoke feelings of disgust and is not small enough to ignore or avoid. Per my comments above, I'd be very keen to collapse this by default. User08342 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have trypophobia and every time I direct someone to the page to show them what it is, I get goose bumps and nausia. Yuck! Then I need to turn to positive visual stimula (vids of puppies) to get rid of it. Would it help if not a photo was used but a drawing?
 * I see that this image is heavely discussed, that is a good thing, imho. Elzo Matala (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that this is still a matter of discussion is mind boggling to me. I definitely don't have/experience trypophobia. But, spending a lot of time over the last 3 1/2 years with someone who does? That's made one thing abundantly clear: it's real, and leaving the article as it stands is a disservice to people struggling with this. What's the fix? I don't know, but it's certainly not "leave things as they are, because (insert bureaucratic justification)" - and given how many people visit this page, vs how many participated in the RFC?

What would it take to sway people? Should I interview psychologists, psychiatrists, LCSWs etc, and make a video? I'm truly at a loss. --Overand (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's really not possible at this point. Some users had taken this as their final stand against "wokeness." Maybe in a few years they'll have come around to being more open-minded, and have the same opinion about this feature as they do the removed spider picture that was meant to induce arachnophobia on that page. For now, I would sooner try to convince sharks not to eat seal meat by swishing it around in a tank full of them. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)