User:Raidarr/Content policy related pov

This essay is in response to Wikipediocracy's Miraheze hosts disturbing content like "real child feet wiki" (archive: wayback machine) + to a lesser degree this thread, and this is written because my opinion was requested by message. I don't intend to register on the Wikipediocracy forum, so I'm going to leave my response as a blog here and if necessary amend with edits to this page or respond to inquiries by its talk page. I am responding as a steward, but not on behalf of the Steward team. It raises a few issues and questions that have come up before including previous reports, which I would like to have here as a formal reference and my official position. This page may be updated, but feel free to refer to version history if that is concerning to anyone.

Degrees of Lewdity and Real Children Feet Wiki
I'm not interested in these wikis. I don't like Real Children Feet Wiki in particular and find it mildly disturbing. Not liking them is not an excuse I will use to delete them. It's not what Stewards are for. Note I say that in particular as the primary thread appears to conflate SRE with the ability to judge and manage content - no, that's Stewards with most policies, Trust and Safety for legal matters in particular, and the community to decide where the line should be set. As a Steward enforcing the line I do not see cause to unilaterally terminate them especially for the reasons provided.

For context, Stewards will intervene when explicit content policy violations are in play (including legal issues or other issues from content policy/known precedence), when the community in general gives a condemnation (for example, the content policy was amended to address the explicit toxicity of the old generation reception wikis when they were presenting a much larger issue in targeting users, content creators and communities) or when issues arise which connect to the above, even if they aren't explicitly written (ie, wiki creators typically are aware of the above reception wiki issue and tend to be much more cautious in approval, among other subjects).

In this case I don't see a lick of evidence. I see where has brought up that the reports do not appear to have actual legal grounds, where DoL explicitly stipulates all lewdity is regarding 18+ characters, where no illegal or sufficiently extreme content is placed on RCFW, only claims of 'child rape simulator' and other hyperbole that seems more concerned with moralizing about what the users don't like as compared to anything substantive. Trust and Safety and Stewards have seen both wikis and not found evidence of their content meriting closure.

And so if the forum cannot be bothered to bring something we can action on, then no action will be taken. If specifics can be provided that we can act on or evidence of actual legal issue is provided (preferably to T&S but if I see it I'll be happy to forward), then the Steward team can do something and I solicit response to the stewards@ email.

Relevant policies since I see it came up in the thread mid-draft:
 * Terms of Use (legality)
 * Content Policy (community standards on permissible material. There are vague 'problematic for other wikis' lines that may be invoked - we don't care to invoke these lightly)

Hit em where it hurts
Tell the press and platforms you like. Include all pertinent information. Include this essay. If they disagree with the assessment provided here, or any further actions from the Steward team subsequent to this/any community proposal that may result, they're free to talk. I'm open by talk page, by discord, and by stewards@ email inquiry. I'm also open to re-reading the thread if there's something worth looking into further. Until then, 'I don't like it' isn't going to cut it. Miraheze isn't advertiser funded and it's explicitly not interested in trying to be a guardian of what it likes or doesn't, sometimes even at the cost of its image. If these boundaries are an issue to GoFundMe for example, they're welcome to reach out and we'll take steps to remedy or change services.

Other thoughts
Frankly what I'm responding to strikes me as a community with little interest in getting to the bottom of things, only witch hunting the content it doesn't like. I get this impression from the hyperbole of its commentary, the aversion to evidence or actionable specifics, and the immediate jump to 'lets take it down' that seems implied by the forum's broader name and nature (I haven't completely looked into it but tbqh I'm not impressed). From here out I'll react as poked and defer to the will of the community, particularly by the results of a Requests for Comment page if it decides these wikis should be eliminated/if a provision is added specifically targeting, say, wikis that pertain to children and can be interpreted as fetishizing them. I'm not picky on the language added in as long as it's clear enough and has proper support.

--Raidarr (talk)