Wikipedia:OMGNUDEHUMANBODIES

Jimbo's talk page is permanently cluttered with complaints about Commons
A group of editors who object to nudity and sexually explicit images often post on Jimbo's talk page, asking Jimbo to intervene. They particularly take offense at the way Commons handles these sorts of pictures. However, while Jimbo is sympathetic to such demands, he has made it clear that his involvement in this matter will be counterproductive. Despite this statement by Jimbo, the same editors repeatedly come to Commons citing new examples of content that they believe to be problematic.

Why Commons resists these complaints
Opponents of Commons' inclusivity maintain that Commons' collection should be limited to a common pool of material to serve the encyclopedias, rather than being a deep archive of user-submitted free educational content with purposes yet to be determined. Commons supporters stand by the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED and dismiss efforts to purge material that seem to be based on personal distaste or unwarranted fears.

Several factors distinguish Wikimedia Commons from commercial sites, leading to a sense that we have different standards. Commons is not subject to the dictates of advertisers who might be intimidated by threats of boycotts. It is generally thought to not be affected by U.S. "2257 regulations" of dubious constitutionality regarding maintaining identity information of actors in adult film. Formally, Commons is a repository of user-submitted uploads like Flickr (from which much of the material is obtained), rather than a publisher which makes editorial choices via top-down hierarchical rule.

Opponents of Commons' inclusivity frequently assert that there hasn't yet been a sufficiently embarrassing crisis to force the foundation's hand and make the lawyers step in, and until that point, no matter which way the discussion trends, commons will stay as it is. As a result, many of the same people campaign tirelessly in an effort to create such a crisis, providing written evidence to the UK Parliament and communicating with reporters in an effort to recruit their interest.

Why complaining about Commons on Jimbo's talk page doesn't work
Proponents of sexual content claim that the complaints are not only ineffective, they are also counterproductive. They claim that the real issue is not simply about having better rules to remove "child porn" from Commons or to make sure search results don't turn up sexual content when this isn't appropriate. While a few complainants are only concerned about these sorts of problems, many others want to eliminate all pictures of a sexual nature from Commons. This provokes counterreactions which undermines not just the larger agenda of the protesters, it also makes it virtually impossible to deal with any problem on Commons via Jimbo's talk page.

Most opponents in fact are at worst resigned to having some sexual content on Commons. The issues actually raised have to do with the degree and nature of that content: opponents assert that much of this content has no educational use and never had any such intent, and that commons is being used as a general repository for such content in lieu of other sites (e.g. Flickr) whose standards are more restrictive. They also contend that a great deal of content is scraped from other sites (especially, again, Flickr) without proper assurance of the kind of model releases generally expected in US law, and with insensitivity towards the subjects. They do not believe that discussion is counterproductive because they feel that many are not aware of the scope and nature of the issues.

Why complaining about Commons may be part of a larger agenda
A number of the complainants have campaigned openly for Commons itself to be shut down or divorced from Wikipedia.