Hey man, you haven't hit me up yet so I thought I'd come here and make the first move on this front. If you'd like, we can discuss this on Discord more privately, or we can keep it on this wall - up to you. I won't say more until you've decided so I'm not starting this conversation in public view when you may or may not want that.
I saw that you were using the category to somehow make a point(?), but thank you for removing them immediately. I could tell you were irritated by this whole ordeal, but please don't hurt the poor little categories ♡ they have feelings too.
If you'd like, I/we can explain the entire story about pornographic content if you could contact me on Discord, where a discussion can be a little more private and a smidge more unfiltered. If not, that's also fine. I'm always down to answer any questions you might have about policy changes the best I can, since I was around when the problems were first brought up in earnest.
If you have an issue with something, taking your frustrations out on the site is immature and not the type of behavior we would like to perpetuate on the site. Especially if you're doing it over something that is as widely disputed as pornographic content, it's not a good look.
I don't usually use discord, so I'll try to explain it here. I wasn't trying to take my "frustrations out on the site", I was just trying to prove that the wording of the new rules have too much room for interpretation, hence why I tagged pics that can still be found "inappropriate" under the new rules even if they aren't.
That being said, it seems my point didn't work, as Themannamedjeffery420 deleted one of those pics even after I removed the violation tag. A pic that, as I told them, should be completely fine even by the new rules.
This is exactly what I feared would happen, people taking the opportunity to censor this wiki of anything they don't like. I have nothing against actual pornographic content being removed, but there are simply too much grey areas that people refuse to consider.
If you have a point to make, that's not a good way to go about doing it. The point of the Violations category is to report violating content, and that picture of Lilithmon is obviously designed to just show off her breasts. For example, compare that picture with the one they have on the actual Digimon wiki:
(ignore the fact that it says Laylamon, Lilithmon is the officially romanized form of the name)
Now, why do you think they chose a picture like that to represent the character instead of the one we have? She's standing in a neutral pose, it still shows the character well, and the purpose is pretty clear - this is a depiction of Lilithmon meant to show the character.
Now take the picture that was added to Violations. Pose is clearly sexualized - meant to show off the character's breasts. She's literally winking at the 'camera'/viewer. It's pretty clear from these facts what the artist was getting at - this is to draw a sexy picture of the character. It is intended to titilate.
When you're editing like that and leaving those kinds of edit comments, it's hard to make the argument that you were editing in good faith - you were editing in anger and instead of making a point it read as throwing a tantrum. This isn't how a reasonable personal disagreement happens, this isn't good conduct for a regular editor let alone a Content Moderator.
If this is how you're going to conduct yourself when you have a disagreement with someone, and you're having this much difficulty understanding basic authorial intent, I don't think you're a good fit for Content Moderation. I've talked it over with Jess, and we've decided that it'd be best if you continued on the site as an Editor from here on out.
About that Lilithmon pic, I thought the pic was appropriate because it shows of her character as the Demon Lord of Lust. But if that isn't okay, I'm perfectly willing to replace it with a more "family friendly" pic like on the Digimon wiki. Unfortunately, that becomes a lot harder to do if the pic is outright deleted.
And again, for the life of me I don't see how that pic is pornographic or explicit content. Its official content that I let stay because it was a high-quality pic that perfectly represented the character.
Also, I'm sorry, but why exactly am I being demoted? I've been here for quite some time and have always acted in good faith. This is just one time I've allowed an argument to escalate. And I while I admit the comments in the edits of mine could have been more tactfully, they were in no way intended to vandalize. I was just trying to explain something, hence why I removed them shortly afterwards.
And quite frankly, why does Themannamedjeffery420 even get such privileges? They've been here faaaaaar less longer than me and have edited faaaaaar less then me, yet somehow their status as a Content Moderator trumps mine?
We opened applications and they have a good application. They had a short edit history, but they had really strong edits and history of great communication, which is essential. When Jess became Bcrat she had fewer than 1k edits, same for myself. Number of edits or history with the site isn't what makes someone good candidates for staff. Strong communication skills, strong reasoning and critical thought, being able to handle themselves civilly and rationally, those are all things that make someone good candidates for staff. There's a lot of users who've been here a long time who aren't staff - it's because time isn't that important a criteria compared to those other traits.
You're being demoted because you decided to go adding things to Violations that even in your own words you didn't think were a problem. It's very clear you did this in frustration and anger, not as good faith edits. It's true that you haven't had a problem up until now, but you also don't communicate very often so it would've been difficult for you to. You message wall is remarkable short, and you don't have a lot of engagement with other editors, so of course you haven't let a disagreement get this far - there aren't many disagreements when you just silently edit.
But the first time we see you have a disagreement and you do this? That indicates a poor ability to handle conflict resolution. How can we know that next time there's a problem you won't misuse the ability to delete/lock pages? When we see this kind of behavior, it's difficult to trust someone with the extra buttons given to a content moderator.
You know what? Fine. I don't care anymore. If you guys are really going to treat me like that after years of work I spend on this wiki, with no problems at all until now, just because I preferred to do my work in silence without meddling in other discussions? Well then, just give me a lifetime block already. I mean it, I'm not comfortable working in such a toxic and censoring environment anymore.
Being here for a long time doesn't entitle you to wrongdoing passes. Doing your work in silence is more accurately called a lack of communication, which on a collaborative system like a wiki isn't exactly optimal.
I don't know why you're calling this a toxic environment. I haven't once insulted you, and I have even made attempts to de-escalate this. Meanwhile you have called me a 'moral guardian', a 'hypocrite', etc. In your own words, you have been disrespectful to me, but I have let it slide because I can understand that you are frustrated and that you care about this topic. This has thus far been pretty far from toxic, and I've done my best to keep this civil and polite. I have tried to be open and to have a good conversation about this, and you're free to continue talking about it. We can discuss places where this might be misapplied, the rules are open to changing. But the discourse can't include deliberate bad faith editing.
"Doing your work in silence is more accurately called a lack of communication, which on a collaborative system like a wiki isn't exactly optimal."
And guess what? It's exactly because I decided to become involved in a discussion that I'm in this mess! Now what is ridiculous?
And I already apologized for calling you those things over a misunderstanding. But clearly you haven't forgotten, as I'm right here being demoted, without being given a chance to explain myself, for harmless edits that I quickly removed. Edits that, once again, were just done to try to explain how easily the wording of the rules could be abused!
You aren't being demoted as a result of insults. My point is it's not fair for you to be calling this a toxic environment when I've been pretty chill about this until now, and that was because I didn't think you were actually going to edit these pages into Violations, I thought it was done as a hypothetical, which would have been perfectly acceptable.
You also aren't in this mess because you decided to enter a discussion, but because of your conduct during this discussion. You are absolutely being given a chance to explain yourself - we've done nothing to silence you. We have no plans on doing so either, because that would be unjust.
Honestly, I think the best thing we can do right now is to sleep on it, cool off, and we can discuss this with cooler heads tomorrow or the next day. Nothing done is permanent, and if you make a case for why you should be content moderator re-promoting you isn't out of the question. We can discuss this rule and how it could be made better, but we have to do that calmly and without knee-jerking or hyperbole. I am totally open to suggestions of how this could be better.
Alright, you have a point. Let's discuss this further tomorrow. I'm at the very least happy I wasn't permanently demoted as I thought I was.
And, to clarify, I'm not saying my large amounts of edits should put me above the rules. I'm just saying they could at least give me the benefit of the doubt; that those edits were not meant to be vandalizing at all.