[06:30:19] [1/2] ^ [06:30:19] [2/2] “Porn” in ANY context shouldn’t be allowed due to the nature of NSFW. If the current policies doesn’t prohibit it then it should be changed accordingly. Like @rodejong said - it doesn’t need to be explained and is common sense. [06:36:06] [1/2] I also disagree an aspect of this, but it is acceptable. [06:36:06] [2/2] I believe things should be viewed if “is it appropriate for an teenager to see this content” as it is the bare minimum age for a individual to access the platform, and “animal porn” doesn’t fit in for me [06:37:12] (Didn’t notice it was done so mbmb) [06:40:32] It's fundamentally where we landed, while it doesn't fall under the explicitly 'offensive' prohibition (or at least the intent thereof), it's also clearly an avenue for bad actors to get up to bad times. Discretion being the key thing here. [06:41:52] FoodPorn being the obvious counterexample of a modern commonly-acceptable name that wouldn't fit within that filter [06:42:50] In those cases, stewards/GAs may or may not elect to approve on a case by case basis [06:43:31] Raidarr's opining above basically gets to the larger problem we're trying to solve for - avoiding overly prescriptive prohibitions for legitimate use cases while limiting vectors for abuse [13:59:06] I mean maybe between the legal landscape and the sensibilities of the current meta community, it is something to revisit in community discussion and even something like FoodPorn should enter the range we don't acecpt at this point. If we do reach that point nsfw project acceptability in general should also be revisited because that's going to bite us sooner than anything else. [14:02:02] I too think that community input would be valuable [17:32:04] Tbh if it’s like foodporn and not child porn, then the user should have their name changed instead of being blocked or banned off site, someone should really make an RfC about this because I would :SupportMH: Support it. Plus as you said it would bite Miraheze at one point since WikiTide is a non profit organization. [17:34:28] flashback to raidarr and agent saying auto approve wiki requests model is unsustainable [18:21:03] For the record, the same exact username wasn't banned/blocked on the English Wikipedia or other WMF wikis either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AnimalCollectivePorn [18:22:43] aw damn now we're more restrictive than WMF [18:26:59] So wait…it’s completely fine? I thought having that was pretty much bad since it has a nsfw meaning. [18:28:00] I think Raidarr's detailed explanation already sets out why Stewards decided not to take action [18:28:31] I remember someone arguing that the WMF would've not accepted the username or something of the sort, which is why I wanted to clarify that it also hasn't been blocked there [18:30:47] https://discord.com/channels/407504499280707585/443926951292567562/1463579882301821143 [18:31:01] Yeah, I forget some information after awhile, mb [18:31:55] I do believe it may cross the line for sexually explicit (which WP forbids in their username policy), but try catching that drop in an ocean. [18:36:25] I mean, we do also have at least one WP admin here if we want to bother them for a take.