This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 05:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
EDIT: In the wake of dozens of misrepresented, out of context screenshots being leaked from a private discord server, most of which involve Immi Thrax and me, I would like to reassure the community that I have received the message: I am neither welcome nor safe on this website, and I will respect the community's wishes and never return. I can no longer trust a single member of the administration, which is one of the most heartbreaking parts of this for me, as I considered some of them among my dearest friends. I am devastated that they clearly believe I deserve to be put in danger by sharing out of context screenshots, a thing that admins specifically requested I did not do on my sexism and misogyny SH. Master Fredcerique told me that he was in fear of losing his job during 2021 because of discord screenshot leaks, and that "Safety for everyone was of utmost importance" to him, hence requesting I not provide usernames. It is clear that Immi, myself and others in those screenshots do not count in this 'everyone', and while I will refrain from speculating why, none of the possible answers are good.
I took precautions when I saw what had happened in the hope that I would not get abused, afraid of receiving threats relevant to the social categories I fall into. One of the admins has highly identifying information about me, and I couldn't remember if I had shared my personal information in the server itself. That admin has thankfully not doxxed me, but I had no idea if he would, or if other people would use what they knew to doxx me. I had trusted them not to use information against me, which was clearly a personal failing of mine. I was too optimistic, and didn't understand that this website is rotten to the core, and I was stupid to think I could ever help make it something I could be proud of.
A man has suggested to me privately that my choice to leave the site is a forfeit of some kind. While I am heartbroken that I can no longer support or fight for editors of marginalised genders, I cannot have an obligation to set myself on fire to keep others warm. I cannot be expected to remain in a place where I am in danger and do not have a robust support structure. I have done all I can for those who are still weighing up whether to remain. My advice: don't trust anyone. Have every single conversation about wook in public, where people can never take your words out of context. Do not participate in DMs, group chats or side servers. Marginalised editors' very existence is a disruption to the status quo of this website, and there is every possibility you will be seen as a threat, even if you are not initially treated as one. Ultimately, my advice is to not be on wook, but if you decide to stay, then good luck. Dropbearemma (she/her) 07:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
We need to have a discussion about sexism and misogyny on Wook. Recent events have made it abundantly clear that many of the active editors cannot or will not recognise their own and others' sexism and misogyny. In a community where half of its potential members may not feel safe to join, it's important to open a dialogue about these issues to both educate others and present possible solutions to work towards a more inclusive environment.
Even just statistically, the Wook's track record when it comes to editors who are not men is limited and quite frankly depressing. I've written this SH in consultation with several other Wook editors in the hopes that we can instigate some meaningful positive change to improve the community, and I'm really thankful to everyone who has given me feedback on the infinite iterations of this post. Dropbearemma (she/her) 03:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Contents
Sexism and misogyny
While I think that nitpicking the distinctions between them is not terribly useful in this context, sexism and misogyny are different. A definition:
- "If patriarchy is the overarching social organization in which men hold the power, and from which women are largely excluded, then misogyny and sexism are the two drivers that uphold this system. If patriarchy is the state with a capital S, the sexism is the ideology, the legislative pillar: it is a form of prejudice made up of assumptions, theories, and stereotypes that normalize and justify patriarchal norms as the most inevitable and desirable. Misogyny, then, is the method. It is both the executive and the judiciary, in that it enforces the ideology and reprimands where there is a breach of law. It is the hostile policing of those women who violate patriarchal norms and expectations, thereby setting a precedent for the cost of feminist transgression.
Sexism synthesizes a disregard of women; misogyny, then, acts out that disregard." - ―Pallavi Prasad[1]
To put it in terms you may be more familiar with: the former Breasts article is sexism. The mockery of women who found the Breasts article offensive is misogyny. The most salient incidents I'm going to discuss are misogyny, but misogyny can only flourish in an environment steeped in sexism. (Spoiler for the rest of this essay: it absolutely flourishes on Wook.)
I'm not here to give you a Sexism 101. I'm not even here to give you a Sexism 201, or anything like that. There are easily accessible resources that you can avail yourselves of in your own time. You do need to know, though, that misogyny isn't going to always be in a guise that you recognise—it's not going to necessarily be "well X is bad at that because she's a woman" or "Y is biased because this is about women and she's a woman". It might look like "Z is too emotional to make a judgement on that" or holding a woman to a higher standard than you would a man (such as, perhaps, demanding 1000 edits in 6 months rather than the 250 established by the communally agreed-upon rules), or demanding reasons why a new Wook Discord user is specifically asking for responses from female editors to give her suggestions for cosplay ideas.
Part of Sexism 101 that I do want to be excruciatingly clear about: men cannot be the arbiters of whether they are sexist or whether they are "allies". When someone says things like, "But I'm not sexist", "I've never been a sexist", "I didn't say anything about women", or "Why are you bringing gender into this?", it tells me that person 1) is incapable of recognizing their own sexism, 2) willfully ignores the possibility that any of their actions could have an element of sexism in them, and 3) considers their personal feelings being hurt as more important than addressing their sexism. I've seen Wook editors claim they're not sexist/misogynist in the same breath as saying something sexist/misogynist. Such comments derail the conversation about accountability and reframe it as a personal attack on that user. This isn't some kind of strawman, either—I am perfectly willing to provide examples from both Discord and the wiki, though I haven't provided them here to avoid publicly singling them out.
Sexism and misogyny on Wookieepedia
There are Wook people who talk about last year's reforms as if by banning DC and Tope they solved sexism and misogyny, and that it's better now. And I have no doubt that it is better, because the bar to clear is about a hundred kilometres underground. I wasn't here for those days, and if I had been, I wouldn't be here now. But I think that my unfamiliarity with the Time Before is a good thing, because I can see what it is like now and not get distracted—and the fact is that sexism and misogyny are very much still here. The society we live in is built on the idea of some groups of people being better than others. We marinate in those ideas constantly, and it takes active, consistent work to fight against them. Sexism and misogyny aren't limited to men—all of us can be and it doesn't have to be deliberate; I've been sexist in the past and will be in the future. Even if it's not on purpose, it's still sexism and misogyny. A lack of intent doesn't magically make it less offensive or harmful.
One of the reasons I have doubts about last year's reforms—apart from the misogyny which was absolutely a factor in Immi's adminship vote, and other, less prominent examples that I've seen in my time on Wook—is that Tope and DC were some of the longest-serving admins (5th and 2nd, respectively). On Tope's RFB vote, a single person brought up Tope's long history of personal attacks and bullying, and it was never addressed. It doesn't matter how good Tope or DC were at writing up articles, or any of their other allegedly positive qualities. They were allowed to stay in power for years, and no one—by which I mean admins and BCs, because the users were probably terrified of crossing them—did anything meaningful about it. They were both Bureaucrats, which means that the community approved of their behaviour so much that they were promoted not once but twice.
They weren't removed until things got so bad that the admin team needed Fandom's help. Over the last year, I've made friends with some of the admins. I know there are good people in that group, and I'm not saying the admins are moustache-twirling, women-hating villains who wanted Wook to be a cesspit of misogyny—but I am saying that their years of inaction and resigning themselves to the status quo allowed it to happen.
I want Wook to be a place that I can believe in. I want Wook to be a place where I can encourage my female friends to come edit and I won't have to tell them which places in the Discord I think are safest to hide from potentially antagonistic people. I want Wook to be a place where I can't name every active female editor. Wook is a place that runs on procedure and the letter of the law. There are good reasons for that—it's huge, and when rules are followed, it means we can be a coherent, useful resource. But focusing on that means people can get lost. Wookieepedia has an enormous impact on Star Wars fandom as a whole. When there are interactions on Wook, we should be looking at those interactions and asking "is this behaviour something we want to foster as part of our community?"—and if the answer to that is "no", but the interaction is tolerated because it has not broken any rule, we should consider reform, because all of our policies were written primarily or entirely by men in a time when Wook was actively hostile.
We cannot rest on the assumption that sexism is solved or that getting rid of two admins has magically made Wook a safe, approachable space. As much as I know there are people who want it to be that, it currently isn't. I've spoken to people who think that the very public banning of Tope and DC in April 2021 has actually meant that the other problems—and they were absolutely just the tip of the iceberg, because that kind of thing doesn't happen without a culture that allows it—have been ignored. Their removal was a starting point, not a solution to everything. When I tell female friends that I edit Wook, the response 'you're so brave' is fairly common! No one should be considered brave for editing a fandom wiki. Wook needs to be proactive in making it clear that it's turned over a new leaf.
I thought, when I was originally drafting this, that Tope and DC had scared female editors away. That we had a decent number of female editors once, and they left. While I know that there were female editors who were specifically pushed out by Tope and DC, having spoken to several, the fact of the matter is that there were only ever a few active at all. Former admin TrakNar (who now uses he/him) confirmed this, saying that during his tenure from 2012-2016, "aside from myself and a couple others, it was a boys club".[2]
While it's impossible to know how many women were editing Wook at any one time, this graph made by Manoof of the total number of admins and the female admins over Wook's history is incredibly bleak. Obviously, part of that is going to be not raising female editors to positions of power, but as TrakNar says, there were also just… not that many. (Note: TrakNar is included in the 'female admins' line, and has given permission for that.)
This isn't because women are less interested in Star Wars, or less interested in editing wikis. It comes back to the Star Wars fandom's hostility, and the way Wookieepedia has cheerfully, knowingly contributed to it through the mocking of women who had a problem with the Breasts/Legends article, Miss Star Wars votes and the objectification rampant across many articles where there's entirely unnecessary commentary on women's bodies, among others.
The problem of insularity
Another inextricable issue is that this community is notorious for being unfriendly to new people. Under different circumstances, that would mean that it would be better if someone else posted this. Multiple times I have asked other Wook users to say things on my behalf because I knew that it would mean far less if I said them—partly because I'm only about a year old, but partly because I'm a woman, and sometimes it's easier to work within prejudices when you want to get something done. But with so few female editors, I don't want to put a burden on them that I'm not willing to take on myself, and the fact of the matter is that if we get more female editors, they're going to be new! Treating new female editors poorly because they're new will just be a vicious cycle that perpetuates Wook's hostility to women. We can't be welcoming to women unless we are welcoming to new editors and patient with their mistakes. Sometimes people can't be good at everything—they may be excellent at finding information, but struggle with grammar. Working together to make up for each other's shortfalls is part of what a wiki should be about, but new editors are often unfairly questioned, ridiculed, and penalised, which will lead to them leaving.
It's not just failing to have correct grammar or a thorough understanding of wiki markup and procedure, either—anyone (of any gender) who is new or isn't active enough is seen as an outsider, and outsiders are seen as suspicious and their opinions are considered to mean nothing. But there are no outsiders. Every single person on the internet is a possible Wook editor. By saying things that happen internally on Wook aren't the business of people who aren't currently active on Wook, you're saying that you don't want more female editors. You don't want reform. You don't want new blood or new ideas. There is no us and them. Internal Wook matters do matter to people not currently active on Wook because Wook matters to the wider Star Wars fandom. Current 'outsiders' are looking at Wook and making a judgement about whether it's a place it's safe for them to be. And every time Wookieepedians are hostile to new people, we're reaffirming that the answer is no.
How can we move forward?
We can't sit back and say 'well now that Tope and DC are gone, the women will come'. That has not happened. Part of that is because Wook already has a reputation, and reputations aren't quick to change, but another big part of that is because Star Wars fandom as a whole is hostile to women, and women are going to assume that Wook, as a cornerstone of Star Wars fandom, has the same attitude. It's going to be difficult to show that Wook is trying to become more welcoming to women. That shouldn't stop us, though. I've asked women and nonbinary folks what they would look for when judging whether Wook was a community worth joining, as people who have never edited Wook. The most important thing for them is to know that there are policies that make it clear that all forms of bigotry are unacceptable (and not just in personal attacks, but in less directed statements, and statements that may not seem obviously hostile), and that those policies are actually acted on. When there is bigotry, it needs to be called out by regular users and admins.
To make Wook welcoming to all minorities, including queer people, racial and ethnic minorities, and disabled people, we need policies against all forms of bigotry, not just sexism. It's against Fandom's Terms of Use, so technically it's automatically banned, but that's not really intuitive and it's likely that it won't occur to people to make complaints based on Fandom's Terms of Use instead of Wook's; I certainly didn't consider it could be a recourse at all until Immi pointed it out while I was writing this. Wook has historically had problems abiding by the Fandom ToU, and we need to work with Fandom staff to ensure that doesn't happen again. This includes policies not just against personal attacks but also against bigotry that's not directed at other Wook users, such as reforms on the phrasing we use in articles.
While I have focused on women in this essay, because I am one and I don't want to speak for groups I'm not a part of, nonbinary people are likely to face this kind of mistreatment too! Wook has historically ignored the existence of nonbinary people—deciding the gender of characters by the 'duck test' being perhaps the most prominent example. Bias against nonbinary people is partly based on queerphobia, and partly because of a gross idea that they're just Women Lite™ (which they're not, but that attitude can lead to them being treated similarly in all the worst ways)—which means they might be in need of the same kind of support, but not automatically have access to any structures that have been built to support women.
What comes next: concrete change
Acknowledging among ourselves that there's a problem is the first step, but unless we have clear, concrete steps to take to create change, nothing will happen.
Ideas that I have discussed with the other female Wook editors on Discord:
A public, outside-facing statement from Wookieepedia acknowledging that the site and community has had problems with sexism and misogyny in the past and that it is taking steps to improve, spearheaded by its existing female editors. This could potentially include examples of the specific steps.Posted after months of begging, hand-holding and feeding language, the site and community has problems with sexism and misogyny in the present and is taking steps to get worse. It took only a month for the administration to force out the loudest voices for change, and the majority of female editors active in the community side of the site have now left.Consultation with Fandom, particularly female Fandom staff (such as our own community manager, Mandy!) to create better anti-bigotry policy; this should be a priority.Posted and subsequently labelled "unelected individuals of influence" having a "puppethold over the administration".A review of all existing policy, including the consensus policy and admin autonomy. We are aware this will take a long time, but we think it is important.Admin autonomy reasserted to ignore privacy policy and personally attack marginalised editors, leading to marginalised editors being put in actual danger by the actions of the administration.A space for women to feel safer asking questions about editing—we have soft-launched an unofficial Discord server for the women and enbies of wook, and women and nonbinary people are welcome to DM me on Discord for an invite.Safety violated by server owner, server labelled "unelected individuals of influence" having a "puppethold over the administration".A series of SHs and CTs about the phrasing used in articles that are sexist—we plan on putting up an SH for brainstorming these in the coming days/weeks. First one here: Forum:SH:Describing enslaved individuals and avoiding objectificationWP:WOMEN, a Wookieepedia Project focused on improving our coverage of women.Once we have made strides to make women safer, activities to attract new women to the site, such as edit-a-thons.Not going to happen, as the majority of women active in the community side of the site have left.
Further suggestions are welcome.
Epilogue: four months later
I can no longer stand by any of these words and do not believe that the administration is committed to protecting marginalised editors, as they have deliberately endangered several of us by posting extensive discord screenshots without context. It is fascinating that they chose to do this despite discord screenshot leaks being one of the worst things that happened in the wake of the 2021 events, because those put people in danger. It seems that they do not think this is the case for us. Dropbearemma (she/her) 05:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I am thrilled to say that despite the, uh, lukewarm reaction to this essay, there's been huge, really wonderful changes that have come of it. In advocating for and implementing these changes, WP:WOMEN has particularly worked closely with WP:PRIDE, because to paraphrase Fannie Lou Hammer, none of us are free until all of us are free. Feminism that isn't intersectional is worth nothing.
The most important change this SH is prompted is to make it clear to the male administrators that complacency is not acceptable. Actually living this, instead of privately saying supportive things, has been a learning process for them. While WP:WOMEN found that frustrating at times, we are incredibly proud of the progress they've made and the hard work they've done and continue to do. We are now completely confident that we have the male admins behind us, and that they will react to backlash with solidarity and refuse to fold in the face of hostility.
Wook editors who have expressed sexism, misogyny or queerphobia and have doubled down on it when confronted have received temporary bans and had their leadership roles removed. This language and attacks were always against the rules, either under WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA or the Terms of Use of our host, Fandom, but in the past, no one faced any consequences. The multiple examples of these rules being enforced equally is a very welcome change. There was a particularly significant incident of this, further elaborated in the Appendix.
The admins have also created Wookieepedia:Fandom anti-discrimination policy, which is a restatement of the Fandom Terms of Use section on anti-discrimination. While Fandom's Terms of Use always applies on Wookieepedia and always has, in theory, most users are unaware of the ToU and what it contains. It isn't intuitive to search for a policy elsewhere to complain about behaviour happening on Wook, and a local page affirming that the anti-discrimination policy applies on Wook reassures marginalised users and makes it clear to others that behaviour that contravenes this policy will not be tolerated. The administration also worked with us to create a glossary of terms with links to learn more. Nobody wishes to punish anyone for ignorance, and several terms used may be unfamiliar to many users, particularly those who speak English as a foreign language.
Bigoted content, including sexism, misogyny, racism, antisemitism and queerphobia has been redacted by the administration. The two largest examples can be found here: Forum:TC:Mister/Miss Star Wars vote archives and Forum:TC:TCs for List of sexual references in Star Wars. (Yes, the Mister/Miss Star Wars vote started a few days before this SH, but it was after I showed Imperators II the draft of the essay, so I'm counting it.) While this could seem like Wook trying to erase its shameful past, that's absolutely not the case. The recent statement of apology from the administration also acknowledges the horrors of the past, including links to contemporary commentary. In many cases, the original bigotry is saved in the Wayback Machine, and the morbidly curious can read it there. The reason these things are being redacted is for the comfort and safety of the marginalised members who could come across it in the future. Everyone should have the right to feel safe while looking through the history of every page on Wookieepedia. They shouldn't have to fear being blindsided by the ugliest kind of reminder that Wook editors of the past considered them objects or unimportant or valid targets for hatred.
Some people (including, initially, me!) were concerned that by removing these awful comments from Wook, it would be harder to convince the people who don't believe us that this bigotry existed and continues to exist. But people who demand proof before they believe victims will find ways to make that proof not count. Nothing will be enough for them, and we can't jeopardise the safety of marginalised users in an attempt to satisfy them.
I remember coming across bigotry on Wook when I was relatively new, and being gutted that Wook was apparently exactly what its public reputation is—a cesspit of bigotry hostile to marginalised groups. I was horrified to see how recent some of the timestamps were, and I questioned whether I wanted to remain here, sure that it was only a matter of time before I was the target. (And this proved true! I was threatened and personally attacked in the aftermath of this SH.) I regretted choosing such a gendered username and being open about being a woman, because it would have been safer to pretend I was a man. I never want anyone else to have that experience. Having it redacted is proof that the administration considers it wrong, and that they care enough to do something about it. You can find further discussion about this particularly on the TC about deleting the "List of sexual references in Star Wars" TCs. It is entirely possible to document Wook's history without leaving up bigotry—this has been achieved, for example, here: Forum:CT:Documenting the "List of sexual references" TCs. Wook is known for obsessively documenting its history—but it should never lose sight of the safety and dignity of its readers and editors. If it does, what is this exhaustively comprehensive encyclopaedia for? We don’t create it in a void; we create it to be read.
Easily the most controversial change that's happened in the wake of this is that Wook began listing pronouns in infoboxes and no longer assumes that pronouns or appearance are indicative of gender. This change makes Wook more accurate and more inclusive. If we can't assume that a ship has engines unless we see it move (which, yes, is established precedent in status articles), how can we justify assuming someone's gender? It's a big change, and one that won't be reflected on all pages immediately, because there are so many pages to adjust. The fact that we were able to do this at all shows just how far the site has come. Of course, there’s still lots of work to do—not all of the goals I laid out in the SH have been achieved, and it was a non-exhaustive list of changes anyway—but it truly feels like Wook is moving towards something we can be proud of, and can eventually become a place that’s recognised for its work to make marginalised editors and readers feel seen and safe and valued. Dropbearemma (she/her) 06:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Appendix
In early February 2023, a veteran user who was a member of all three review boards, thus representing the community as a model of what a good wook editor is, posted what I can only describe as a hateful screed. The screed has since been redacted by the administration, but the replies to it remain. The user was a mainstay of the community, heavily active in the status article review process and had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Manual of Style, Layout Guide and existing precedent. Despite this, the bureaucrat Imperators II did not hesitate to demand that the editor resign from all three boards. In fairly short order, the editor was given a temp ban. It was a shining example of how much things have changed. Imperators wrote a rebuttal to the screed that was incredibly thorough and brought multiple WP:WOMEN members to tears, because it was a shining example of not only how things have changed, but what strong allies we have in the administration. You can find it at Forum:SH:The way I see things, but I’m also including it here with irrelevant comments removed and minor formatting things:
[Redacted by administration] UberSoldat93 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
- Okay, UberSoldat. I see you've made the choice to make your views known publicly. Well, then, let's address them publicly if that's what you wish. Let me preface this by reminding of the terms each of us agree to abide to by editing Wookieepedia - the Fandom Terms of Use. For the purposes of this discussion, this excerpt specifically. Let me repost it here:
"You agree not to: Post, link or transmit any written, visual, or symbolic content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party, or encourages criminal conduct, or contains slurs, hate speech, dog whistles, and/or incitement of violence. This includes, but is not limited to: ableism, ageism, biphobia, discrimination based on family structure(s), ethnocultural discrimination, exorsexism, gender essentialism, homophobia, misogyny, polyphobia, racism, religious or areligious intolerance, sexism, and transphobia."
So, straight off the bat, yes, Fandom's Terms of Use guarantee that no editor on the platform is allowed to disrespect any other editor's rights to hold religious views. BUT. There are also other things mentioned in the same sentence that Fandom's Terms of Use dictate for us to abide to. Things that we can summarize as "do not discriminate any members of the LGBTQIA+ community." You, UberSoldat, are saying that your religion holds views that "directly challenge" "the beliefs" of said community.
First of all, I would like you to publicly apologize to all of our LGBTQIA+ editors and readers that you've referred to their identities as "beliefs". I respect you enough as an established editor and reviewer of Wookieepedia status articles of several years to be able to see that you owe others way more respect than that.
Secondly, regarding the apparent conflict between the rights of the abovementioned marginalized minority and the beliefs dictated by any religion - how are we to interpret what Terms of Use tell us? I'll tell you how we interpret it - on Wookieepedia, religious tolerance can only be practiced as far as it does not in turn violate any of the other abovementioned ToU rules. What that means is that, no, respecting an editor's religious views does not mean we are free to infringe upon the rights of the minorities. And that's just that, those are the Terms of Use of Fandom, the platform hosting Wookieepedia. It's something that our community has to abide to, and it's something that I personally - and, I hope, our community as a whole - wants to abide to. Why? Because we do not want for any reader or editor here to feel unwelcome or unsafe - and it means that it is also the duty of everyone editing Wookieepedia to behave in a way that does not make any member of this community to feel unwelcome or unsafe. If you, UberSoldat, feel like you are not comfortable with following such Terms of Use, then I'm afraid there's no other recourse for you but to reconsider whether you are comfortable being a part of this community. This, I feel, is the crux of the matter at the heart of this particular discussion, and is something that I have said to you in private before - now that you have elected to made your opinions known publicly, I feel like I have no choice but to accordingly stress this point to you publicly, as well.
You have also expressed some other, more specific opinions. Let me address those, as well.
- You mention your belief that we should not be "eliminating words such as "slave" and rewording sensitive wording from source material". Regarding the former, I believe that Spooky, whom, I might add, you seem to respect very much as a fellow status article reviewer, makes the case for not using objectifying language on Wookieepedia's articles, far better than I ever could. The way I see it, it all comes down to very basic concepts, really. Wookieepedia strives to be the best Star Wars encyclopedia there is, yes. But it does not have to do so at the expense of our readers. We are not responsible for the content that Star Wars has released in the past and releases now or in the future, but we are responsible for what content do we choose to host. And we choose to host material that does not objectify people or reuse "sensitive wording", as you say. (An association to this that immediately comes to mind to me is the administration having to redact the title of an in-universe subject that, in the original Star Wars source, unfortunately used a slur in it. Is that what you wish for us to host on Wookieepedia? Language that is actively discriminatory, not to mention proscribed by Fandom's Terms of Use for that very reason? Or are you referring to any of the myriad instances of sexism-infused (again - violates the Terms of Use!) phrasing that pervades so many of our articles and that some of our editors have so selflessly taken upon themselves to correct? Is that what you'd like for us to keep?) Your point that us not hosting Terms of Use-violating language will somehow make it "difficult" for "unsuspecting" editors to write articles is a non-existent problem compared to us electing to keep hosting such material as we've so wonderfully done for roughly seventeen years now.
- You say that "accusations by certain users within [...] the site [..] without concrete basis" have soured your experience in this community. I can only assume that what you're referring to is either a) the matter of ecks itself, in which case, yes, Fandom has deleted the direct evidence for the Terms of Use violations unearthed in that debacle (but which you can discover for yourself in Wayback Machine in order to see that the "accusations" were far from "without concrete basis"), or b) the several recent cases of open sexism and misogyny exhibited by members of our community. In that regard, the basis for the accusations is Super Concrete.
- You say that "multiple long-time editors have expressed their discomfort at the current state of the community" - that is always troubling to hear. If you want to use that as an argument for why we should not try and make Wookieepedia a more inclusive community, however, allow me respond with a counter-question: what about the decade+ long discomfort at the previous state of the community by other long-time editors and short-time editors, of whom so many have been driven away by it? Hmm? And frankly, being afraid of causing "division" is likewise not a good enough reason not to take steps to ensure that Wookieepedia is a more welcoming place for all.
- You say that Wookieepedia articles no longer assuming individuals' gender from the pronouns used to refer to them creates an "additional research burden". Please, UberSoldat, let's dispense with this lazy talk already. Show more respect to the enthusiasm with which other editors have already corrected heaps of articles. If, as you say, researching Star Wars sources for actual referencable information on their gender and pronouns is "simply not fun" anymore, perhaps simply a break from editing the Wook is in order? You know, replenish energy, revitalize your love for the Star Wars franchise? And I'm sorry, but I just don't see how Wookieepedia not assuming gender from pronouns is going to "turn away editors from writing up character articles", sorry. I just don't. We've never shied away from the fact that we have high standards for our status articles, and, at the end of the day, drawing information about pronouns and gender solely from the parts of SW sources that actually support such info (basic Wookieepedia:Attribution, really) is just one more rule. It's no groundbreaking change of paradigm with respect to how articles are written that people can't cope with. And again, this is all just comes down to abiding by the Terms of Use, anyway. Part of what exorsexism is is maintaining, to the detriment of nonbinary and other queer people, that a person's gender and the pronouns used to refer to them are necessarily linked in an exclusive way. On this platform, we just do not get to do that - due to it being non-inclusive of people, and due to it being forbidden by rules.
- You say that you find it "very puzzling" that LGBT editors "found it acceptable to assume gender based on pronouns". One thing to keep in mind is that, yes, change toward inclusivity on Wookieepedia has been painfully slow. It is something we are all working on right now and will likely keep working for some time still. But another thing: do you really believe that our LGBT editors, after being openly harassed on Wookieepedia for years, are just going to have the sheer courage to take upon themselves to just initiate sweeping changes on the site overnight? Do you really think it takes a negligible amount of daring on their part to speak out against the harmful practices we've been perpetuating for years? No. The members of our community who represent marginalized groups of society are speaking out when and where they dare, and it is the task of the rest of us to support them and encourage them into feeling they can speak out at all, in contrast to how it was in the "good old times" on the Wook.
- In that very passage, you refer to LGBT editors as "pro-LGBT editors". That's basically equivalent to sorting people into those who recognize the identity of members of the LGBT community and those that do not. The latter do not have a place on Wookieepedia - see Fandom's Terms of Use quoted above.
- You say that you find it "ill-founded" to avoid associating pronouns with gender for the in-universe Star Wars social groups, saying that such course of action entails assumption. I could not disagree more, since it's the exact opposite - indeed it's associating pronouns with gender that is the assumption. If there are social groups in SW that do associate pronouns with gender, that's fine, but in the absence of such information, we simply don't assume, same as how we should not assume for real-life people.
- You say that Wookieepedia is assuming that its "readers follow progressive values, which [you're] sorry to say is not the case" - this isn't about values, UberSoldat. This is about the human rights of our editors and readers. There are certain such rights that Fandom indirectly pledges to respect, as outlined in the Terms of Use quoted above, and accordingly so do we. And at the end of the day, nothing else, no generalized statements about what readers supposedly do or do not believe or follow, matters.
- You rhetorically ask "If we stop assuming genders today, can you guarantee that people won't start pushing the same practice for species or even different types of inanimate objects tomorrow?" - I'm sorry, what are you even talking about there? What has making the language on Wookieepedia more inclusive toward marginalized visitors got to do with alien species and inanimate objects? How are these equivalent things? Why are you treating things that affect real people as equivalent to things that affect fictional subjects?
- You talk about social norms potentially changing in the future. That's obviously a possibility. If that affects Wookieepedia articles, it will be addressed. But that doesn't mean that Wookieepedia must in the meantime avoid becoming a more inclusive and welcoming place.
- You talk about it being desirable to have in Wookieepedia "a community where people are free to put their thoughts into words without consequence [...]". I agree with that - with the important caveat, which has very demonstrably surfaced in the recent months, that words that cause harm to others can not remain without consequence. Those times for Wookieepedia are indeed coming to a close.
...You have said a lot of really troubling things today, UberSoldat. Things that have, once again, hurt the marginalized members of our community. A lot. What you have said here today makes our fellow Wookieepedians who happen to represent minorities on this site feel that their identities are being denied and that they do not belong here. I respect your contributions to our project, UberSoldat, and I hope you eventually come around to understanding the need for us as a community to be a welcoming place for all readers and editors. But due to the above considerations, I, in my role as a Bureaucrat who represents our community, cannot let you remain in a position of high authority on Wookieepedia and thereby request your resignation as a member of all three status article review panels. Should you choose to refuse or ignore this request I will begin proceedings for a removal vote accordingly. I hope for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Imperators II(Talk) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think Imperators has pretty comprehensively covered everything that needs saying here, but I want to make clear that I fully support his statement. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Same here. I am a Muslim as well, but my views contrast with yours, UberSoldat. Rakhsh (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I too support Imp's statement. The things you've said here, Uber, are extremely concerning and distressing. While I fully support your right to practice your religion, it absolutely cannot be used as a reason to push back against the existance of the LGBTQIA community here. One point in particular I want to reply to is your comment "dreamt of a community where people are free to put their thoughts into words without consequence and not be reprimanded just because they do not agree with what some in society have to say." Every single person here is absolutely welcome to share their thoughts without fear of reprimand, provided those thoughts do NOT infringe on the rights of others. I am very disappointed by your comments here, and echo the call for you to immediately step down from your position on the review panels. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 04:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- It always blows my mind, as someone who has experienced racial discrimination, when someone who has experienced discrimination goes on to discriminate someone else. That's what you've done, and doesn't excuse what you've done. Your religious beliefs are yours but give you no right to discredit and erase the identity and rights of others to simply exist. Your words here have, quite frankly, hurt and made other editors (and likely readers) a myriad of hurt, pain, anger, fear, frustration and trauma. A myriad of viewpoints and experiences are important for a society to develop and flourish when those viewpoints have a mutual respect for each other. A viewpoint such as that expressed above shows you do not respect others. Some of what you have spoken about is framed in a way that the wook has operated successfully in the previous 15-odd years, where people could say what they want. The reality is that it was only those in power who could do that. Women, LGBTI, people of color and those with disabilities were all previously targeted and marginalized. They COULD NOT say what they want because they were met with hostility, crude and hurtful jokes, made to feel less than human and even scared to stay in the community. They were met with real threat of violence and the continued work we are doing to stamp out such behaviors and improve the community spirit and comradery, such as the pronoun policy update, has resulted in increased number of editors and members on the Discord server who are not men, not white, not from America. THAT'S the diversity of thought you say you want, but instead of welcoming it, you shrink from it. You say anyone who disagrees are labelled derogatorily, when in fact you are deriding others. You say people who disagree are socially executed and narratives fabricated, when the record of those who have had disciplinary action in recent months is available for the public, fabricating a narrative that suits your own needs. You speak of people imposing their beliefs on others, when that is what you yourself are asking us to do. Your words are full of hate and hypocrisy and any respect I had for you has been shattered. You have made clear to this community that you do not care for anyone who is a part of the LGBTI community. You would, to use your words, prefer a hivemind free from anyone identifying as LGBTI, because that is the result of what you are pushing back against. Frankly, this community doesn't need any one person who does not accept or appreciate other members of the community for who they are and if this is truly how you feel, I don't understand why you have made such a massive hurtful post instead of just, you know... leaving... Manoof (he/him/his)
11:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- For clarity: Ubersoldat was blocked for one month for this post. Uber brought up that we need to be a space where people can openly discuss issues, and when it comes to issues of ‘’Star Wars’’ or wiki operation, that is true. I will debate the placement of an event in the timeline, what model of blaster it looks like someone is using, whether we should trust autographs, or if we need articles for every kind of bread, till I am blue in the face and be happy for it. That kind of discussion is healthy and necessary for this community.
What is not healthy or necessary is allowing people to debate very real issues that cause very real harm to our users and readers. We cannot claim to be a welcoming and inclusive space if one of the topics up for discussion is “should we acknowledge the very existence of LGBTQ+ individuals.” How can we ever expect users to feel comfortable here if at any time they might have to debate and fight for the very validity of their own identities. It is not our place as a fan wiki on a fictional franchise, no matter how much I and anyone reading this might love it, to say that we have decided that our very important “true encyclopedic coverage” of the franchise is more important than their wellbeing. Former admins who shall not be missed used to say that it was not our jobs to care about peoples feelings when covering ‘’Star Wars’’, but frankly that was always a bullshit excuse for them to just mistreat people and cover things exactly how they wanted. Going forward we need to leave that kind of mindset behind, we can cover this franchise we love in the level of detail people expect of us and also takes into account the inclusion and safety of real people and community that surrounds it. These things are not mutually exclusive priorities and never should be. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC) - I'm not sure if you're still following this SH, so this is more for the people who will read it in the coming days. I am the person responsible for kicking off the changes in the last few months. I have been, of course, building on the foundations created by queer wooks who came before me: in the wake of April 2021 WP:PRIDE made really important improvements to the site, both in policy and culture. Unfortunately, the administration actually paying attention and combatting the sexism and misogyny that still remained in the wake of the April Events didn't really happen much until I posted my SH in October 2022. I allowed several admins to read it before I posted it, which gave them time to reflect and wrestle with their own parts in wook's hostility to women.
This process has been a learning curve for them. Many of them were admins during the Dark Times, and tolerated the culture of hostility towards marginalised editors. Some of them stood by and watched as marginalised editors were publicly abused. I say this not to put them on blast or because I hold some sort of grudge against them, but because they're important examples of how people can learn and grow. Many of them are now some of my best friends, and while they certainly weren't perfect immediately when the women and nonbinary users of wook began this recent project to make wook a better, more welcoming community, they were receptive to our criticism. I'm honoured to have them as such strong and enthusiastic allies, as without them, I don't think much of this would have been possible.
I am a lesbian, which means I am one of the people you think hold "beliefs" that are unacceptable to you. It is, of course, not a belief; it is a reality, and as a lesbian I deserve respect, because I am a human being. I am also religious! And, like you, I choose to live my religion with joy. We try to live in a way that shows others what our religion means: that we're supposed to leave this world in a better place than it was when we found it. I think that making this community a better, more welcoming place for marginalised editors is making the world better, even if only a small part.
There is a concept that the philosopher Karl Popper called "the paradox of tolerance": if a tolerant society tolerates those who are intolerant, the intolerant will eventually destroy the tolerance by pushing out the members they are intolerant of. Thus, Popper says, a tolerant society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance, "even if it means removing intolerant members of the society by force".[3]
Now, it is important to acknowledge that Popper makes it extremely clear that removing the intolerant by force should be a last resort, only after rational argument has failed. We have tried rational argument. The shift in the attitude of the admins proves this. It is a rational argument that all human beings deserve respect, and deserve to feel safe. It is affirmed in documents that underlie modern Western society such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights,[4] but most importantly for our purposes, on the very website we are writing this on.
Ultimately, the question at the heart of this issue is: "are opinions about how to be 'most accurate' with documentation of a franchise about space wizards more important than the dignity and rights of the wiki's editors and readers?". For me, and for the other editors who have been harmed by wook's past disregard for them, the answer is no. Dropbearemma(she/her) 09:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- First question I have: what is the objection to the current consensus policy? Not trying to be argumentative, just understand what the issue is. VergenceScatter (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- There are a couple issues I can think of as a guy, there may be some other aspects I'm missing because I, as a guy, have a blindspot Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
1) votes can only be overturned by increased participation. This means decisions made 10+ years ago are hard to overturn, even if it's clear they need to be overturned.
2) the requirements to pass mean that if something affects a minority who need something changed, they need to work harder because there's simply less of that minority available to vote, requiring allies
3) the convoluted system of counting votes means that a vote with much support can still fail on a technicality- I mean, the reason that it's hard for votes to be overturned is because community decisions have weight, as they should in any electoral system. Moreover, the current consensus system has shown over and over again that it's perfectly capable of overriding bad decisions from the past. And to your third point, what technicalities are you talking about, and have they caused any recent problems? VergenceScatter (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- But policy should reflect the will of the current community, not the will of the community from 10 years ago. That's the main issue. Requiring a larger number of votes to overturn a previous ruling instead of just a general consensus is designed to prevent progress. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 04:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really agree that it's designed to prevent progress. It's just designed to make sure that community decisions can't be overridden easily, which they shouldn't be. That does not inherently prevent progress. But honestly that's not really the focus of this thread, so maybe we should save it for another thread. VergenceScatter (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The problem we have is that currently, especially with the vanishingly small number of women and nonbinary folks on the wook, it's incredibly easy to not only drown us out but to bury the votes we want to have, through the incredibly high consensus requirements (a 7:3 vote would fail, for instance) and the requirement that any subsequent votes have an equal or higher number of participants. This is how the Breasts/Legends article was allowed to stay as it was for as long as it did. The current Miss/Mr Star Wars vote is a perfect example of the system failing -- every single woman who's voted has voted to delete, but it still might fail. The deadnaming vote was also close to failing. I'm not saying we shouldn't give decisions weight, but we need to review how many support votes consensus requires as well as the policy on revisiting past votes that have failed. We can and should have an SH discussion about it, but I do think it's good that we've laid out our reasoning for it here in this discussion section. Thank you for asking! Dropbearemma (she/her) 04:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose it could be reasonable to lower consensus slightly. However, the issue you've described is one of the Wook not having enough female editors, not an issue with the vote itself. I think we've proven over and over again that the Wook in its current incarnation is able to handle these issues even with the current voting system. The mister/miss star wars vote, for example, is close to failing, but not that close. However, as I said above, this isn't really the focus of this thread, so I'll drop it for now. VergenceScatter (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You actually hit the nail on the head when you say "Wook not having enough female editors". We need to look at why that is, and what actions we can take to make this a more welcoming environment. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 04:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Vergence that this is an issue of not having enough women editing rather than our consensus policy. (Interestingly, Emma's point reminds me of the tyranny of the majority.) In terms of overriding previous decisions, I personally can't remember an instance in my time that a vote revisiting a previous one failed because it didn't have enough participants. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 04:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You actually hit the nail on the head when you say "Wook not having enough female editors". We need to look at why that is, and what actions we can take to make this a more welcoming environment. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 04:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose it could be reasonable to lower consensus slightly. However, the issue you've described is one of the Wook not having enough female editors, not an issue with the vote itself. I think we've proven over and over again that the Wook in its current incarnation is able to handle these issues even with the current voting system. The mister/miss star wars vote, for example, is close to failing, but not that close. However, as I said above, this isn't really the focus of this thread, so I'll drop it for now. VergenceScatter (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The problem we have is that currently, especially with the vanishingly small number of women and nonbinary folks on the wook, it's incredibly easy to not only drown us out but to bury the votes we want to have, through the incredibly high consensus requirements (a 7:3 vote would fail, for instance) and the requirement that any subsequent votes have an equal or higher number of participants. This is how the Breasts/Legends article was allowed to stay as it was for as long as it did. The current Miss/Mr Star Wars vote is a perfect example of the system failing -- every single woman who's voted has voted to delete, but it still might fail. The deadnaming vote was also close to failing. I'm not saying we shouldn't give decisions weight, but we need to review how many support votes consensus requires as well as the policy on revisiting past votes that have failed. We can and should have an SH discussion about it, but I do think it's good that we've laid out our reasoning for it here in this discussion section. Thank you for asking! Dropbearemma (she/her) 04:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Design of a process can 100% result in unintended consequences, including impeding progress, which is why processes are continually reviewed and redesigned and tweaked and improved. The callout here is that one of these consequences is that it is effectively hard for minority groups to enact change without support from those in the majority, specifically the minority of female editors. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really agree that it's designed to prevent progress. It's just designed to make sure that community decisions can't be overridden easily, which they shouldn't be. That does not inherently prevent progress. But honestly that's not really the focus of this thread, so maybe we should save it for another thread. VergenceScatter (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- But policy should reflect the will of the current community, not the will of the community from 10 years ago. That's the main issue. Requiring a larger number of votes to overturn a previous ruling instead of just a general consensus is designed to prevent progress. MasterFred
- I mean, the reason that it's hard for votes to be overturned is because community decisions have weight, as they should in any electoral system. Moreover, the current consensus system has shown over and over again that it's perfectly capable of overriding bad decisions from the past. And to your third point, what technicalities are you talking about, and have they caused any recent problems? VergenceScatter (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The "equal-or-greater voter participation" exists to prevent "consensus wars" where one settled issue is debated back-and-forth to no productive end. Even during the Dark Times (c. 2014-2017, when a lot of editors left after the Legends announcement), I cannot recall a single vote not passing due to insufficient voter participation. The notable exception is Forum:CT:Canon/Legends Default Switch, which took ages to pass because the original vote had an absurdly high number of participants. While I wouldn't mind an expiry clause for the equal-or-greater participation clause (a year or two, probably), it is in my opinion incorrect to claim that this clause has stood in the way of progress. 1358 (Talk) 06:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- And an expiry clause is IMO exactly what is needed. This applies to TCs as well, Wampa cave took two rounds to be recreated and, as you've noted, the default switch took longer BECAUSE of the previous number of voters. These are impediments as a result of this rule, but just because there are few examples doesn't mean it shouldn't be ignored, it typically means it isn't addressed as high a priority as something that has a larger impact. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- There are a couple issues I can think of as a guy, there may be some other aspects I'm missing because I, as a guy, have a blindspot Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just want to get out in front of this and say that, fellow men, especially those that have been part of this community for a long time, this may be hard to read. It should be hard to read. That's ok. We men are humans and have made mistakes. Those mistakes have hurt people and damaged this wiki. Let's learn and move forward. Take a deep breath. Self-deprication will not breed progress. The future of the wiki can be a wonderful one, but there are always pains that come with growth. Keep your eye on the prize, and that prize is a flourishing, diverse wiki community that is safe for everyone. And to my women and nonbinary friends and fellow editors, I know for certain that I have contributed to some of the culture here on this wiki. I've spent the last year and a half doing more soul-searching than I ever have in my life, and it's been the hardest thing I've ever done, but I've learned so much. I promise I'll continue to learn and to work alongside you, educating myself and allowing myself to be educated by others when they offer it. You have my sincerest apologies, but that only means something if it's accompanied by actions. As an admin and bureaucrat, I've been trusted to help set the direction of this wiki, and I won't take that lightly. I know I have blind spots, especially in regards to misogyny, and so I applaud users like Dropbearemma, Immi Thrax, and several others for showing grace as I fumble my way into a more open mindset. The Wook is lucky to have you, and it will only see better days if it learns to listen to your voices. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 03:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate all the time that you’ve taken to put this together, Emma. There clearly is a history of misogyny on the Wook that needs to be addressed. However, I would very much oppose trying to achieve this goal with Fandom because of their historical disrespect for the workings of this wiki. Obviously, we are hosted on Fandom and are obligated to follow their ToU, but that doesn’t mean that we should have any more connection than that. I also strongly disagree with the idea that we are hostile to newcomers. We have rules, but enforcing them does not make us hostile. I just joined two and a half years ago, so I remember when I didn’t really know what I was doing (see my talk page archive for more details :P) but making sure that I followed rules was not being hostile. I can’t speak for the ways in which women may be treated differently by our rules, but those differences in enforcement simply mean that we need to work to enforce our rules equally for everyone, not that we need to get rid of them. I also think that while it makes sense to try to make it clear to the general fandom that the Wook is trying to be more open to women, we should not be overly concerned about what other fans think. We exist to record Star Wars, not satisfy the aims of other groups. There is no reason that people who do not participate in this project should have a voice on its direction or rules. All that being said, I absolutely look forward to future forums on problematic phrasing on the wiki, and will help with those projects whenever they’re ready. I also think that it makes a lot of sense to have a more concrete anti-bigotry policy, but as I said above we are more than capable of creating one ourselves without Fandom’s intervention.
There is one final point, however, that I must mention. You stated in this thread that “misogyny absolutely played a part in Immi’s RFA.” Now, you’re entirely entitled to your opinion, but I really don’t think that it’s fair to suggest that the opposition to her nomination was based on sexism. There were perfectly valid reasons for people to oppose and to support. I’ll fully admit that I may be overreacting, but I find this argument rather frustrating and simply don’t think that you should denounce other editors’ votes in a completely different forum. Thank you again for all of the work you and the others did to put this thread together. I hope that it helps Wookieepedia to move forward and that we’ll get some more editors soon! VergenceScatter (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)- I'd like to echo that it's unfair, and honestly a little accusatory, to say that misogyny was a factor in Immi's RFA. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 04:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- As Emma explained above, emphasis mine: You do need to know, though, that misogyny isn't going to always be in a guise that you recognise" […] "It might look like "Z is too emotional to make a judgement on that" or holding a woman to a higher standard than you would a man (such as, perhaps, demanding 1000 edits in 6 months rather than the 250 established by the communally agreed-upon rules)." Further, when OOM was added to the admin team earlier this year, he became the 11th admin at that time (one was removed after him). The issue of the number of admins or the timing of adding new one was never raised with him, but it became one when I was nominated to become the 11th. This is not as blatant as saying "I oppose her because she's a woman" and it isn't necessarily something people are consciously aware that they're doing. Immi Thrax
(she/her) (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Unless you have evidence that misogyny was a factor, it's not a fair accusation to make. Especially because people had valid reasons to vote the way they did that did not just involve timing. The assumption that you know why people did what they did better than they do is just not a fair way to approach this. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you believe that the only misogyny is when someone twirls their moustache and says "I'm doing this because I hate women", you're going to continue to be part of the culture that makes women here feel unsafe. This post is specifically focused on racist microaggressions, but it explains the concept of microaggressions well (I'm unable to speak to the presence of racist microaggression on Wook as I am white, but I wouldn't be surprised if they existed and made Wook editors of colour feel unsafe too). Intention is not the be-all end-all; the vast majority of people aren't twirling their moustache and explicitly saying they think women are worth less. This does not make it any less harmful. Dropbearemma (she/her) 05:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting your point: are you saying that voting against a female candidate is a microagression? Because that's how it comes across to me. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just because this insinuation refuses to go away, this graph displays the edit counts (past six months and past 12 months) of all admin candidates since 2008. Even the admin candidates who are close in edit count—OOM in the past 6 months, and Fred+Jorrel in the past 12 months—have significantly more edits (+35% and +31% respectively). Furthermore, OOM had significantly more edits over the past 12 months (+145%) and Fred+Jorrel had significantly more edits over the past six months (+168% and +135%, respectively) I was hoping that I would not have to bring this up once again, but given these direct accusations at me and others who did not vote in support, it appears there is no other option. "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another" is a violation of our Civility policy and I would hope this discussion can have a more productive tone than these accusations. 1358 (Talk) 05:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- These accusations were not ill-considered; we did very much thoroughly consider them. We've laid out why we think they were motivated by unintentional misogyny -- people that voted no specifically for that reason used a standard that has never been approved by the community (and is in fact higher than the standard for remaining a bureaucrat); as someone who is focused on policy and consensus, I found it confusing that you would ignore it in this way. If you could point to ways in which Immi failed to meet any standards agreed upon by consensus, I'm very willing to listen! Dropbearemma (she/her) 06:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The minimum requirements established by WP:RFU and WP:A in no way hinder my or anyone else's prerogative to have their own criteria for candidates, in this case a certain level of editing activity. They are minimum requirements. If I demanded that all candidates had 10 GAs and 200 template edits to their name, I would be well within my rights to do so (although others might not agree with me and choose to vote differently) and is neither sexist nor in violation of any policy. 1358 (Talk) 06:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just curious about the data you've used for this, by my count you've omitted about 20 past admins and what namespace are you looking at edits. As mentioned previously, users with additional roles will often make more non-mainspace edits. For example, admin who were on review panels prior to their nomination will have more wookieepedia-space edits because of their reviewing. In general though, they'd be expected to have higher edit counts due to this responsibility, especially when there is a standard/requirement for those with responsibility to exercise said responsibility. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- This graph shows edits across all namespaces and contains statistics from admin candidates since 2008 in chronological order. The data collection was a tedious manual process so I did not bother going further back in time, believing that my point has been adequately proven. 1358 (Talk) 07:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- These accusations were not ill-considered; we did very much thoroughly consider them. We've laid out why we think they were motivated by unintentional misogyny -- people that voted no specifically for that reason used a standard that has never been approved by the community (and is in fact higher than the standard for remaining a bureaucrat); as someone who is focused on policy and consensus, I found it confusing that you would ignore it in this way. If you could point to ways in which Immi failed to meet any standards agreed upon by consensus, I'm very willing to listen! Dropbearemma (she/her) 06:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you believe that the only misogyny is when someone twirls their moustache and says "I'm doing this because I hate women", you're going to continue to be part of the culture that makes women here feel unsafe. This post is specifically focused on racist microaggressions, but it explains the concept of microaggressions well (I'm unable to speak to the presence of racist microaggression on Wook as I am white, but I wouldn't be surprised if they existed and made Wook editors of colour feel unsafe too). Intention is not the be-all end-all; the vast majority of people aren't twirling their moustache and explicitly saying they think women are worth less. This does not make it any less harmful. Dropbearemma (she/her) 05:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Unless you have evidence that misogyny was a factor, it's not a fair accusation to make. Especially because people had valid reasons to vote the way they did that did not just involve timing. The assumption that you know why people did what they did better than they do is just not a fair way to approach this. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'll state what I often tell the people I develop into leaders at work. Perception is reality. Even if there was no intended misogyny, it is not unreasonable to interpret the expectation that a woman more than meet the requirements as misogynist. If we are to create a place where everyone is welcome, we must be incredibly mindful of the perception of our actions. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 05:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Perception is very definitely not reality. It's unfair to accuse someone of something based entirely on how you perceive it. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You missed the point. The point is that everyone perceives reality differently, and being aware of how your words and actions are perceived is a necessary part of communication. The reality of your intentions doesn't end up being very important if it's not perceived in the intended matter. Any good communicator realizes this and caters their language and action to that perception. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 05:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- In this case the action was voting on a RFA. It sounds like you're suggesting that I shouldn't have voted that way because of how it would be preceived. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I find it highly ironic to talk about holding people accountable for how others percieved their votes, bc we should consider how it's percieved, while this thread's good intentions got hidden by the accusations and warnings to the community right off the bat. Democratic votes must be held accountable for others' opinions but not deliberatly inflammatory language? Fan26 (Talk) 05:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- And that was explained very clearly in the post when Emma described misogyny as not being something that is always direct, intentional, and obvious. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 05:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I read: "men cannot be the arbiters of whether they are sexist or whether they are "allies". When someone says things like, "But I'm not sexist", "I've never been a sexist", "I didn't say anything about women", or "Why are you bringing gender into this?", it tells me that person 1) is incapable of recognizing their own sexism, 2) willfully ignores the possibility that any of their actions could have an element of sexism in them, and 3) considers their personal feelings being hurt as more important than addressing their sexism." Saying it's not intentional...this basically makes it impossible to deflect any accusation. An accused would have to sit and apologise for their percieved trangression, rather than defend themselves. Fan26 (Talk) 05:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You simply reply, "I'm sorry I made you feel that way. Please allow me to communicate my ideas better," and then proceed to communicate those ideas with the new knowledge of perception in mind. No one is looking to cancel people. They just want to be comfortable. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 05:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- If there was a legitimate genuine miscommunication that would make sense, but when someone comes out swinging with assumptions of bad-faith, especially accusations as serious as the ones being levied here, that's different. Like, for example, I feel uncomfortable at how weirdly nice people are in the discord to me even if they disagree with me. It freaks me the frick out, and makes me wonder. But like, anyone with a brain can see they're just tryna be nice so like, it's not on them to apologise if I outright accuse them of double-timing and decieving me. Fan26 (Talk) 06:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody said anything about anyone having to sit and apologize, merely that we need to sit and listen, something I absolutely support. When a female says they feel uncomfortable here, our reaction needs to be to listen to that, not deflect the issue at hand. Bottom line is we very clearly do have improving to do, and the only way to do that is listen to what is making people feel uncomfortable. Will it be a fun conversation? Probably not, but it will lead to learning, and improving - which I do believe all of us want. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 05:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I understand that no one is looking to cancel people, Fred. But if people decide that the reasons I give for doing something are not actually the reasons, that is not an issue with my communication. It is not, therefore, my responsibility to apologize. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You simply reply, "I'm sorry I made you feel that way. Please allow me to communicate my ideas better," and then proceed to communicate those ideas with the new knowledge of perception in mind. No one is looking to cancel people. They just want to be comfortable. MasterFred
- Yeah I read: "men cannot be the arbiters of whether they are sexist or whether they are "allies". When someone says things like, "But I'm not sexist", "I've never been a sexist", "I didn't say anything about women", or "Why are you bringing gender into this?", it tells me that person 1) is incapable of recognizing their own sexism, 2) willfully ignores the possibility that any of their actions could have an element of sexism in them, and 3) considers their personal feelings being hurt as more important than addressing their sexism." Saying it's not intentional...this basically makes it impossible to deflect any accusation. An accused would have to sit and apologise for their percieved trangression, rather than defend themselves. Fan26 (Talk) 05:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- And that was explained very clearly in the post when Emma described misogyny as not being something that is always direct, intentional, and obvious. MasterFred
- You missed the point. The point is that everyone perceives reality differently, and being aware of how your words and actions are perceived is a necessary part of communication. The reality of your intentions doesn't end up being very important if it's not perceived in the intended matter. Any good communicator realizes this and caters their language and action to that perception. MasterFred
- Perception is very definitely not reality. It's unfair to accuse someone of something based entirely on how you perceive it. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- As Emma explained above, emphasis mine: You do need to know, though, that misogyny isn't going to always be in a guise that you recognise" […] "It might look like "Z is too emotional to make a judgement on that" or holding a woman to a higher standard than you would a man (such as, perhaps, demanding 1000 edits in 6 months rather than the 250 established by the communally agreed-upon rules)." Further, when OOM was added to the admin team earlier this year, he became the 11th admin at that time (one was removed after him). The issue of the number of admins or the timing of adding new one was never raised with him, but it became one when I was nominated to become the 11th. This is not as blatant as saying "I oppose her because she's a woman" and it isn't necessarily something people are consciously aware that they're doing. Immi Thrax
- And in reply to Vergence, the vitriol this community used to have, and which I helped foster, was unwarranted. If the Wook is making harmful decisions, our hosts should step in and prevent it. This is their website. We owe them everything because without them we don't exist. It's better to work with them than it is to work against them, even if simply for pragmatic reasons. As for how we treat newcomers, this is an area of expertise for me, and as the admin overhauling the newcomer experience, I can guarantee there is a culture of hostility toward new users. The hammer is very often brought down on first-time editors for the simplest of mistakes, and the general community is not very good at wording its warnings. In fact, we often jump to warnings way to quickly in the first place, when we should be offering help as the beginning of the conversation. Regarding our rules needing to be enforced equally, when those rules were often designed by bigotted people, it can be inferred that the intension is bigotted. I can confirm from private conversations with previous admins that some of these policies were designed specifically to silence minority opinions without explicitly stating as much. And lastly, your comments about not caring what the outside world thinks simply show that public relations is not a priority to you. That's totally fine, but the wiki as a whole can't survive without good PR. Being dismissive of what people outside the wiki think is actually a form of hostility toward newcomers. All newcomers start as people on the outside, so if you don't care about their opinions, you're not concerned with convincing them to join the effort. That's how we stagnated in our numbers for years. How this is relevant to the conversation is that we seem to be decent at attracting male editors, though we could be much better, but not so great at attracting female and non-binary editors. We should really be looking at why that is. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 05:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's really not hostile to newcomers to disregard the opinions of people who aren't part of the wiki, because those people are not newcomers. People should join if they want to, just as they always have. We obviously need to work to make sure that women feel more comfortable joining, but I don't see how that involves letting others dictate things. Only the people who are part of the wook should have any power. That's how communities work, and I don't understand why we would give power to people outside of it. The thing is, we should be making the right decision. That's not necessarily the same thing as what the greater fandom wants, so I don't understand why that would be a factor. And we definitely shouldn't lower our standards just to attract new people. Moreover, enforcing our rules does not explain the lack in female editors at all. As I said above, differing enforcement might, but that's a completely separate action than changing our rules. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is though, all of us were outsiders at some point or another. By coming here and offering an idea, a concept, or a suggestion, someone is making the choice to try and make us better, and that should be celebrated. Us being more welcoming and open to ideas from outside our editor base makes us stronger, and gives us access to perspectives we might not have considered otherwise. Things like this will only increase our standards, not lessen them. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 05:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The Wook is not insular. We are part of the greater Star Wars community. This is not a choice. We are whether we like it or not. Ignoring that fact will only be to our detriment. No one is saying we let non-editors vote in our forums. We're saying that the perception the outside has of the community is often not one that leads them to want to join. That's a pretty big problem. Any organization that wants to be successful at recruiting knows it must look enticing to outsiders. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 05:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It absolutely is a choice. We're an encyclopedia; we should make the choices that benefit that goal, not the choices that other people want. If having higher standards prevents some people from wanting to join, that's not a bad thing. We shouldn't focus on the community when we didn't choose to be part of it and they are irrelevent to our mission. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not once did anyone suggest lowering standards. That's a strawman. I have no idea where you even got that. And thinking we can somehow choose to not be part of the Star Wars community when we are literally a Star Wars community ourselves is nonsensical. Our focus is Star Wars media. We have always been and will always be part of the greater Star Wars fan community. But this is getting off-topic. Women are not comfortable in this community, and every established woman editor is telling us the exact same thing. We need to listen. MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 05:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- A significant part of this thread involved removing editing policies, which would lower standards, so it's not a strawman. And I absolutely agree that we need to listen to women and work to make them more comfortable. That has nothing to do with listening to people outside the community on matters of policy. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Could you point to a place where I suggested removing editing policies? That's not what I intended, so I'd be grateful if you pointed it out so I could clarify my meaning. When you say "Moreover, enforcing our rules does not explain the lack in female editors at all.", I thought that the essay communicated that this is actually the case; my apologies that it didn't come through. The lack of policies that ensure articles are written in a way that's not demeaning and the lack of local policy that ensures bigotry isn't acceptable (not only as part of WP:NPA, but more broadly) do keep female editors away. I have consulted women on this. Immi has said this before. Lastly, when you say that we're an encyclopaedia (and therefore we shouldn't consider policies about the comfort of people? I'm pretty sure I'm not interpreting what you said correctly, there -- what do you mean?), if we don't take our audience into account, who are we writing the encyclopaedia for? Also, who are the others you refer to in "letting others dictate things"? I would really appreciate you clarifying these things. Dropbearemma (she/her) 09:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The paragraphs in the section on insularity criticize our strict policies on sourcing, grammar, etc. You never explicitly mentioned removing policies, so maybe it was a bit misleading to say that's what the thread says, but by arguing that the enforcement of those policies is a problem, you're either suggesting that they need to be changed or removed. "The lack of policies that ensure articles are written in a way that's not demeaning and the lack of local policy that ensures bigotry isn't acceptable (not only as part of WP:NPA, but more broadly) do keep female editors away." I entirely agree with this, and I'm sorry if my earlier comments made it seem as if I didn't. I certainly agree that we need to add to policy in this area. But, the way I read that section (please tell me if I'm misunderstanding) is that you're arguing that in addition to needing new policies to make women feel safer, we need to revise the current editing policies we have, which I'm a little confused about. " therefore we shouldn't consider policies about the comfort of people?" As you said in your above comments, this is not what I meant (and I'm sorry if it came off that way). I absolutely believe that our policies need to make people feel comfortable. When I'm trying to address is where you say "By saying things that happen internally on Wook aren't the business of people who aren't currently active on Wook." Simply put, while we have a duty to make the Wook safe for all people, we don't have a duty to listen to people who don't contribute to the Wook. Perhaps I'm getting a bit off-track, but I think that we are capable of making the policies that will protect people while also making the policies that will allow the wiki to function best as an encyclopedia—something that people who aren't part of the Wook are less likely to understand. I hope that and my newest comment at the bottom make my overall position a little more clear, but feel free to ask any more questions if you have any! VergenceScatter (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for this explanation! It helped a lot (apologies that I didn't see it earlier, there was so much happening). I don't think we should necessarily remove any editing policies (though we should revisit them to make sure that things like Forum:CT:Allowing singular "they" aren't in there). As Minna said, it's more about how we treat newcomers when they don't necessarily adhere to those policies. Re: wook business, I don't think people who don't currently edit wook are particularly interested in the minutiae like Forum:CT:Correct title template in WP:LG, the likes of which is important for functioning best as an encyclopaedia -- my point was far more about when there's critique of Wook, people act as if no one has any right to care if they don't currently edit. As I said in my post, everyone is a potential Wook editor, and the critique of Wook is going to be important for both their awareness of what they're walking into and their willingness to stick around. I understand that last year things got very bad and escalated to death threats and there was a lot of abuse directed at completely innocent individuals, and I absolutely don't want that to ever happen again. That doesn't mean that we should be hostile to the idea of current "outsiders" taking an interest in Wook affairs, though. We have a huge influence within Star Wars fandom, which is also notorious for its sexism, so if we can shift the needle on that, we should. Dropbearemma (she/her) 07:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that we can have a significant influence on the fandom, and I think the way we do that is by setting a better example. But frankly, people who aren't a part of the Wook don't have a right to participate. That's how any community works. Yes, everyone is a potential editor, but if they want a vote they should become actual editors. And not enforcing all of our rules such as the correct title template will have an effect on the overall status and quality of the site. These rules need to be enforced equally for everyone. The fact that we have editors shows that it's perfectly possible to navigate our rules. Any situation in which the rules are being enforced differently is a significant issue. I'm not opposed to "current "outsiders" taking an interest in Wook affairs" but in the same way that I can take an interest in Candian politics without actually being able to vote in Canadian elections, people who aren't part of the site can take an interest without actually having influence on our approach. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that anyone's suggesting we let everyone take part in votes or that we don't enforce policy at all, it's about making the community more welcoming and open to people who currently aren't active editors so that they're more likely to want to participate. If people outside of the editing community have constructive thoughts or concerns about Wookieepedia, we should do our best to listen to them to see how we're perceived and if it identifies areas of improvement or new ideas that we hadn't come across internally. We can then take these into consideration when deciding on future changes, but can equally decide not to act on them just as we do any internal idea or discussion. As to editing policies, it's more about how we approach new users who don't format something correctly or know about a policy but are acting in good faith. Sometimes, but not always at the moment, we as a community can tend to just slap warnings on people's talk pages saying "you made a mistake, don't do it again," whereas for new users we should really strive to try and say "hey thanks for contributing, on your recent article you did this, but we always try and do it this way. Happy to show you how to do it" or something similar. Obviously if they continue to ignore offers of help and not bother to apply the correct formatting and generally make clear they aren't acting in good faith then they should be warned and eventually blocked. So ultimately the same standards should be met, it's just about how we help people reach those standards. Clearly we do have editors that prove it's possible to navigate our rules, but that's no reason to not want to make it easier for others to do so. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that we can have a significant influence on the fandom, and I think the way we do that is by setting a better example. But frankly, people who aren't a part of the Wook don't have a right to participate. That's how any community works. Yes, everyone is a potential editor, but if they want a vote they should become actual editors. And not enforcing all of our rules such as the correct title template will have an effect on the overall status and quality of the site. These rules need to be enforced equally for everyone. The fact that we have editors shows that it's perfectly possible to navigate our rules. Any situation in which the rules are being enforced differently is a significant issue. I'm not opposed to "current "outsiders" taking an interest in Wook affairs" but in the same way that I can take an interest in Candian politics without actually being able to vote in Canadian elections, people who aren't part of the site can take an interest without actually having influence on our approach. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for this explanation! It helped a lot (apologies that I didn't see it earlier, there was so much happening). I don't think we should necessarily remove any editing policies (though we should revisit them to make sure that things like Forum:CT:Allowing singular "they" aren't in there). As Minna said, it's more about how we treat newcomers when they don't necessarily adhere to those policies. Re: wook business, I don't think people who don't currently edit wook are particularly interested in the minutiae like Forum:CT:Correct title template in WP:LG, the likes of which is important for functioning best as an encyclopaedia -- my point was far more about when there's critique of Wook, people act as if no one has any right to care if they don't currently edit. As I said in my post, everyone is a potential Wook editor, and the critique of Wook is going to be important for both their awareness of what they're walking into and their willingness to stick around. I understand that last year things got very bad and escalated to death threats and there was a lot of abuse directed at completely innocent individuals, and I absolutely don't want that to ever happen again. That doesn't mean that we should be hostile to the idea of current "outsiders" taking an interest in Wook affairs, though. We have a huge influence within Star Wars fandom, which is also notorious for its sexism, so if we can shift the needle on that, we should. Dropbearemma (she/her) 07:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I see the section you're talking about, but my read on it is that the manner of criticism/approach to offering it can be intimidating to newbies, rather than that it's wrong to have standards. I will say, particularly as a woman who has spent most of my time in less male-dominated parts of fandom, it can be very daunting to step into spaces like Wook where cis men are the overwhelming majority. There's a cultural trope that too often proves true of men in hobbyist communities demanding a higher standard of knowledge from women just for them to be considered part of the in-group, or dismissing their expertise, and I think that we're working against that trying to recruit people who are not cis men. I would suggest that the insularity problem section warns us to keep that kind of context in mind, to value the strengths new editors come in with, and be gentle when they do need guidance. I agree that the changes we make should support Wook being a good encyclopedia! I think we can keep the broader context of Star Wars fandom and the world in mind as we do so. We're all obviously deeply emotionally invested in this site and our work on it, and I can totally understand the conversation getting heated (touching on your comment below). I just hope that when existing encyclopedic standards come into conflict with the desire to not cause harm, we can step back and find a way to mediate between the two. Minnabird
(talk) 23:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I can totally see how that would be intimidating, and I definitely agree that we need to make sure that the rules are being fairly enforced for everyone at the same time. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The paragraphs in the section on insularity criticize our strict policies on sourcing, grammar, etc. You never explicitly mentioned removing policies, so maybe it was a bit misleading to say that's what the thread says, but by arguing that the enforcement of those policies is a problem, you're either suggesting that they need to be changed or removed. "The lack of policies that ensure articles are written in a way that's not demeaning and the lack of local policy that ensures bigotry isn't acceptable (not only as part of WP:NPA, but more broadly) do keep female editors away." I entirely agree with this, and I'm sorry if my earlier comments made it seem as if I didn't. I certainly agree that we need to add to policy in this area. But, the way I read that section (please tell me if I'm misunderstanding) is that you're arguing that in addition to needing new policies to make women feel safer, we need to revise the current editing policies we have, which I'm a little confused about. " therefore we shouldn't consider policies about the comfort of people?" As you said in your above comments, this is not what I meant (and I'm sorry if it came off that way). I absolutely believe that our policies need to make people feel comfortable. When I'm trying to address is where you say "By saying things that happen internally on Wook aren't the business of people who aren't currently active on Wook." Simply put, while we have a duty to make the Wook safe for all people, we don't have a duty to listen to people who don't contribute to the Wook. Perhaps I'm getting a bit off-track, but I think that we are capable of making the policies that will protect people while also making the policies that will allow the wiki to function best as an encyclopedia—something that people who aren't part of the Wook are less likely to understand. I hope that and my newest comment at the bottom make my overall position a little more clear, but feel free to ask any more questions if you have any! VergenceScatter (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the idea is to outright remove policies, but to review and discuss modifying policies that people feel aren't serving the community well. If anything, this is a call to add editing policy. Minnabird
(talk)
- I also think that this is about where we use those standards and how we address users who don't meet them. Is it critical that someone new format an infobox properly, if that infobox is sourced correctly? Not really. Things like that will be fixed if/when that article is taken to status. But we shouldn't penalise or be harsh on new editors who make minor mistakes, when their edits are improving what information we have or cleaning up some spelling or grammatical error and are sourcing. We shouldn't come down on someone who correctly attributes information they add, even if they don't use the correct template or don't archive or whatever. Messages on their talk page shouldn't be "You did the wrong thing!!!!" but should be more "You did awesome adding this, great job! This little thing is something we do, let me know if you need help with this in future and I'd be glad to help!" Tone is everything and I think that's what is often missing. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Could you point to a place where I suggested removing editing policies? That's not what I intended, so I'd be grateful if you pointed it out so I could clarify my meaning. When you say "Moreover, enforcing our rules does not explain the lack in female editors at all.", I thought that the essay communicated that this is actually the case; my apologies that it didn't come through. The lack of policies that ensure articles are written in a way that's not demeaning and the lack of local policy that ensures bigotry isn't acceptable (not only as part of WP:NPA, but more broadly) do keep female editors away. I have consulted women on this. Immi has said this before. Lastly, when you say that we're an encyclopaedia (and therefore we shouldn't consider policies about the comfort of people? I'm pretty sure I'm not interpreting what you said correctly, there -- what do you mean?), if we don't take our audience into account, who are we writing the encyclopaedia for? Also, who are the others you refer to in "letting others dictate things"? I would really appreciate you clarifying these things. Dropbearemma (she/her) 09:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- A significant part of this thread involved removing editing policies, which would lower standards, so it's not a strawman. And I absolutely agree that we need to listen to women and work to make them more comfortable. That has nothing to do with listening to people outside the community on matters of policy. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not once did anyone suggest lowering standards. That's a strawman. I have no idea where you even got that. And thinking we can somehow choose to not be part of the Star Wars community when we are literally a Star Wars community ourselves is nonsensical. Our focus is Star Wars media. We have always been and will always be part of the greater Star Wars fan community. But this is getting off-topic. Women are not comfortable in this community, and every established woman editor is telling us the exact same thing. We need to listen. MasterFred
- It absolutely is a choice. We're an encyclopedia; we should make the choices that benefit that goal, not the choices that other people want. If having higher standards prevents some people from wanting to join, that's not a bad thing. We shouldn't focus on the community when we didn't choose to be part of it and they are irrelevent to our mission. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's really not hostile to newcomers to disregard the opinions of people who aren't part of the wiki, because those people are not newcomers. People should join if they want to, just as they always have. We obviously need to work to make sure that women feel more comfortable joining, but I don't see how that involves letting others dictate things. Only the people who are part of the wook should have any power. That's how communities work, and I don't understand why we would give power to people outside of it. The thing is, we should be making the right decision. That's not necessarily the same thing as what the greater fandom wants, so I don't understand why that would be a factor. And we definitely shouldn't lower our standards just to attract new people. Moreover, enforcing our rules does not explain the lack in female editors at all. As I said above, differing enforcement might, but that's a completely separate action than changing our rules. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to echo that it's unfair, and honestly a little accusatory, to say that misogyny was a factor in Immi's RFA. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 04:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Before commenting, I want everyone to take a moment to think about something. Historically, Wook has been overwhelmingly edited by males. I've seen women and non binary individuals say time and time again that they have not felt comfortable here, and we need to acknowledge and change that, not slide it under the rug and pretend the problems don't exist. I especially want to thank Immi for all the discussions and education she has provided since the events of last year, as these have opened my eyes to our longstanding issues. I want to help build a better Wookieepedia, and that starts with listening, and learning. Together we are going to change things for the better. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 04:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- That was a really good essay. As for how I've felt on this wiki in the time I've been editing here, because I generally keep to myself (especially earlier) I didn't really notice the majority of the bad behaviour of the two ex-admins until they were gone. It may well have played a role in some talk page messages from one of those former admins regarding edit summaries (he kept doing this for ages). It would certainly be nice to be able to not know the names of the other members of this wiki's unofficial regular female editor club (which I am pretty confident I do, at this time, have memorized). Still, we can do better. SilverSunbird (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Per Emma and the others, the historical nature of this wiki is not exactly something that has been completely gotten rid of. There are still examples of it today (like the current discussion on Miss Star Wars), and there are things that can and should be changed as to not make it exceedingly difficult for women, nonbinary people, and minorities to get changes to the wiki made. People need to start listening. You may not intentionally be saying something bigoted, but that does not mean it is not coming off that way. Intent and outcome are two completely different things. This is actually why I have a personal problem with the 2/3s rule; all women can be speaking out against something, and it still could not be good enough to change. User:SnowedLightning/Sig2 05:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Putting in my two cents: Wook does have some palpable entrenched culture hanging around, and I'm not blaming anyone specific for it because it's the collective buildup of years, but it does make it hard to look at and think "yeah, that's a place I can definitely fit comfortably." The good news is that it can be better. But for that to happen, we do need more of our own local policy, not ad hoc rules of thumb and solutions. Something that comes to mind is the old Breast article, both because it was my first experience of Wook as a potentially hostile place, and because the arguments for keeping it as-is often clung to the idea of not deleting things, of preservation itself, as a neutral stance. It's actually not! What we choose to feature, how we feature it, what is detailed and what is not, says a lot about priorities. This is pretty neutral when you're wanting to write about CIS ships, and Naboo ships fall by the wayside, but the ways that we write about people reflect on us and affect our audience (who are much broader than other Wookieepedia editors). I'm very interested to see editing policy discussions come out of this; I think we can set better standards that reflect the inclusivity we want to extend to editors and readers. Minnabird
(talk)
- I want to take a second to tell everyone about a thing called an implicit bias. Implicit biases are biases that can drive the actions, words, or motiviations of an individual to an almost subconscious extent. You may not even be aware of these biases. You may genuinely not think what you do can be influenced by an innate bias against something. But those biases can still be there. And they usually are. It doesn't make you automatically racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, or any other variety of the -ists, -isms, or -phobics. But it's an indication that you can still improve. Simple things like two individuals having the same accomplishments but a different gender or sexuality, and yet some may vote more in favor of one rather than the other despite both having the same qualifications. Those who vote more in favor of, say, the man may not be doing it consciously or intentionally, but implicit biases can still influence things like this. So when people point out contradictions, it isn't necessarily accusatory. Even if you disagree, you should always take a step back and look at your actions, opinions, or words and consider why they swayed a certain way, or how they affected someone else. If you get offended when someone tells you to be better, that's the point that concern regarding your actions may be warranted.
I need to make it abundantly clear that I am not pointing fingers. Almost EVERYONE is subject to, in some form, being influenced by their implicit biases. I've done it. Other male editors here have done it. It's highly likely that even Immi or Emma have implicit biases of their own, even if in a different form. It doesn't mean these biases reflect their or our true values, but they still exist, and the first step to fixing them is acknowledging them on all levels.
Wookieepedia as a whole has implicit biases built into its foundation. We've made steps to improve this and it's a much more welcoming place than it used to be. But at the end of the day, there are massive, systemic and sweeping changes that MUST be made if we're to truly make this a welcoming place for ALL editors, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or beliefs. The treatment of women on Wookieepedia may be one piece of the puzzle, but fixing it can be a major step on a long road to being better.
To summarize, yes, changes need to be made. No, disagreeing some changes doesn't automatically make you a bigot, but while your oppositions to some may be agreeable, for others you may have to re-evaluate what made you think that way. Yes, the changes made in the coming days, weeks, months, and even years may alienate some individuals, old and new—but that is ultimately a consequence of change in ANY direction, and it may very well be a necessary one. There is NO REASON to make concessions or compromises on the path to real equality. Either we go all the way, or we may as well not be moving at all. Editors here need to begin accepting change, even if it means we get jabbed at more by The Fandom Menace and get called names like "Woke-ipedia", because ultimately, we're moving in the direction of equality, and as long as we do not exercise hate ourselves, it doesn't matter what the hateful think about us. - DFaceG (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)- As another, more brief summary: Disagreeing on changes meant for progression doesn't automatically render you a bigot, but it might mean you need to reconsider or rethink why you swayed some way. Change needs to be made, and compromises for equality cannot be given. We cannot and should not tolerate the intolerant. - DFaceG (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Good post, Emma. :P The fact that we have male editors here deflecting on the main issue here - that the Wook has demonstrably yet to become a place friendly for new editors or established editors who aren't men - to go on a tangent about perceived accusations is indeed telling that we still have much work to do. I'm intrigued by and curious about all of the proposed steps to improve our current situation and am looking forward to help wherever I can. Imperators II(Talk) 10:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Emma for raising the issues of sexism and misogyny. I agree that we as an online community need to be able to deal with difficult topics so that we can continue to grow and remain relevant. Emma also talked about the need to have checks and balances for our leadership in the light of our past experiences with Tops and Darth Culator. While our administrators and bureaucrats are elected by members of the community, they currently serve indefinite terms until they either resign or are removed due to inactivity or violating Fandom and Wookiepedia rules and standards. I propose that we set term limits for our administrators and bureaucrats. Maybe three years for admins and four years for bureaucrats. At the end of their term, they could stand for re-election or choose to step down. Members of the community can vote on whether they can continue as administrators or bureaucrats. Admins and bureaucrats can remain in office as long as they maintain the consensus of the communities they govern. This may create more work for our community but I thought that it would be a good way of ensuring that our administrators and bureaucrats have a mandate to govern. Happy to hear what other people think. This proposal has room for improvement. Andykatib 11:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- While the site and community has notably improved since the removal of Tope and Culator, Emma is totally right in saying that we still have a long way to go in terms of becoming a welcoming and safe space for many groups within the Star Wars fandom. I'll be the first to admit that after their removal I've let myself become complacent on these issues simply because it's easier and more comfortable to just bury my head back in to article writing and say that I'll get round to looking at them at some point in future, just as it was easier to turn a blind eye to the former bureaucrats' misbehaviours and not risk my own neck for far too long. However, for this site to fully thrive and for this community to earn the trust of the wider Star Wars fandom we need to do better then this and actually prioritise the hard work, admins especially, since despite being volunteers we have still chosen to hold positions of power within this community and so must take on the responsibilities that come with that.
- These changes will involve uncomfortable discussions, especially for those of use dealing with sensitive issues that we're unfamiliar with, but this shows all the more reason that we need more diverse voices within our community who can speak more confidently on these topics and help suggest where we need to go. It's easy to get defensive when some of these topics come up, I know that's been my gut reaction on occasion, but this isn't an exercise in singling out individuals or punishment, no one is getting blocked for voting the wrong way. It's about discussion of overall trends that all of us have been part of in one way or another and how we can all look at our own habits and assumptions and how they tie into this. I'm confident that everyone involved in this discussion knows that there does need to be change and wants the same overall end goal, a safer and more welcoming Wookieepedia where everyone can be comfortable.
- As to Emma's suggestions for change, I think reviewing existing policy should be one of our top priorities, ecks especially has already done fantastic work on updating many of our older policy pages and the rest of us need to focus with him on some of the pages Emma has mentioned as well as new, local, anti-bigotry polciy more clearly stating our stance on such things, which is something I'm also confident we're all on the same page about. A statement is important as well, although I think it'd probably be prudent to hold off on issuing it until we have some meaningful policy changes or new anti-bigotry policies to reveal alongside it so that it doesn't just seem like empty words out of nowhere. Other areas like WP:Women and some wording issues I trust to other more knowledable community members then me to lead, but look forward to participating in.
- The final thing I want to say is that I agree strongly with Emma that we can work with fandom on this stuff. I know that some of you have a lot of mistrust for Fandom and wish to be involved with them as little as possible, and I certainly understand where that comes from; they are ultimately a company with their own differing goals to us and have certainly not handled some issues ideally in the past. However, even if they aren't perfect, we are tied to them by our platform and so working closely with them to help improve the site only benefits us and ensures that our voice is heard in wider discussions on Fandom as a whole. As a company they do also have access to professionals and resources that we don't as volunteers and we so I think it'd be a mistake not to use them, especially in terms of simply listening to their advice before making a decision ourselves as a community. I can also personally say that those Fandom staff I've worked with like Brandon, Mandy, Chris and others are genuinely good folks who just want to help, so I hope we can make the most of their input in future. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- "they "have certainly not handled some issues ideally in the past" is an enormous understatement. They hung us out to dry at a critical time when their support would have actually been helpful and have shown no remorse for it. VergenceScatter (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- First off, I want to say that I'm sorry for being somewhat abrasive in my responses last night. I got more frustrated than I should have. But I want to make it absolutely clear that there are real structural problems on the Wook and that we need to take real steps to address them. Moreover, implicit bias is absolutely a real factor that everyone should consider when talking about this issue. My frustration mainly stems from the fact that it feels like I am being told that I have not considered it enough to actually understand my true motivations, while others fully understand my reasons. Perhaps it's unfair of me to feel that way, but it is how I feel. I really don't like that this is something that I even feel like I need to talk about, since the purpose of this thread is to work on how to improve the wook. But it is difficult to participate in that conversation when it feels as if it starts with an unfair, targeted accusation. Again, I'm sorry to spend so much time on this—I'm just trying to explain why this is something that I brought up in the first place and why I found the response frustrating. I'd much prefer to focus on direct ways that we can improve the site. VergenceScatter (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The REASON for doing something may be innocent whilst still having a subtext of -isms, without intention or malice. Often that subtext is hard to identify, especially the closer you are to that decision. A classic example is hiring people - statistics continually show that names foreign to the hiring individuals and hard to pronounce are less likely to be hired. Not because the person is racist but often because there is a degree of embarrassment of not knowing how to pronounce the name. There is implicit racism here, although there is no racist. There was no accusation that you or any others on any side of a vote is sexist or a misogynist. There is however implicit bias that needs to be addressed. For Immi's vote, in my eyes there's a few questions of "Would a male receive the same degree of scrutiny/standard? HAS a male received the same treatment? Is any concern raised sufficient in the weight of everything to justify a rejection, and would a similar situation prevent a male? Were the concerns raised something that was known beforehand via written standards, discussion, or similar concerns raised with previous nominations, even if to say that the concern has been addressed? Once the answer to these sorts of questions are found, would someone be justified in thinking that there is a subtext of sexism due to such discrepancies? And looking at the wider picture (number of female admins historically/number of failed nominations), could it be inferred a fail result is, in part, due to a historic culture of sexism? The answer to that last is a resounding and unequivocal "YES!" Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Implicit bias absolutely is something that needs to be considered, and introspection is a completely fair thing to ask for. The issue comes in where, as you did in your above message, you inherently assume that the extensive introspection that I have undertaken is inherently not enough. Moreover, you assign a subtext to my actions that is not based on my words but on what you think my motivations are. I understand that perception matters, but that doesn't make it fair for you to assign a meaning to peoples' actions that are not evident in their words. The questions of "Would a male receive the same degree of scrutiny/standard? HAS a male received the same treatment? Is any concern raised sufficient in the weight of everything to justify a rejection, and would a similar situation prevent a male?" are perfectly valid ones, and I have thought about them considerably. It feels as if you are assuming that a) I (and others) have not done so, and b) we would have voted differently if Immi had been male—which without access to my thoughts doesn't make much sense to me. I hope this clarifies my feelings. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The REASON for doing something may be innocent whilst still having a subtext of -isms, without intention or malice. Often that subtext is hard to identify, especially the closer you are to that decision. A classic example is hiring people - statistics continually show that names foreign to the hiring individuals and hard to pronounce are less likely to be hired. Not because the person is racist but often because there is a degree of embarrassment of not knowing how to pronounce the name. There is implicit racism here, although there is no racist. There was no accusation that you or any others on any side of a vote is sexist or a misogynist. There is however implicit bias that needs to be addressed. For Immi's vote, in my eyes there's a few questions of "Would a male receive the same degree of scrutiny/standard? HAS a male received the same treatment? Is any concern raised sufficient in the weight of everything to justify a rejection, and would a similar situation prevent a male? Were the concerns raised something that was known beforehand via written standards, discussion, or similar concerns raised with previous nominations, even if to say that the concern has been addressed? Once the answer to these sorts of questions are found, would someone be justified in thinking that there is a subtext of sexism due to such discrepancies? And looking at the wider picture (number of female admins historically/number of failed nominations), could it be inferred a fail result is, in part, due to a historic culture of sexism? The answer to that last is a resounding and unequivocal "YES!" Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Multiple other admins and two of our bureaucrats have commented on the actual problems thus far; I thank you for that. I'd still like to hear from the others who have yet to respond. In particular, I'd ask the staff who precede me by several years to please take a hard look at their own roles in enabling this environment to flourish through inaction or even active participation in it. Out of the public eye on the IRC server, users and staff alike bullied others and made horrific remarks without being confronted or sanctioned, and to a lesser degree this has continued on Discord. Public threads show numerous examples of people attempting to speak up about misbehavior and abuses of power, and either receiving silence as a response or a threat (implied or explicit) to silence them by reinterpreting policy in order to find a reason to block them. As Fred pointed out: "I can confirm from private conversations with previous admins that some of these policies were designed specifically to silence minority opinions without explicitly stating as much."
Since he has been on Wook since 2009 and has not yet engaged with the actual topic of sexism and misogyny on Wookieepedia, I'd especially like to hear from bureaucrat Ecks. I'd also like to review his allegation that Dropbearemma's (and others') concerns about what happened with my nomination for admin rights constituted an "ill-considered accusation" in violation of the civility policy, which carries the implication of a potential block and thus has a chilling effect on voicing any concerns. Immi Thrax(she/her) 15:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- My reference to the Civility policy was not intended as a threat. Subtle and polite threats have been used by other admins in the past so I can completely understand why it was interpreted that way. However, let me make it crystal-clear that I will not block anyone who engages in a good-faith discussion on this topic and nobody should be afraid of voicing their opinion in that respect. Emma and others are more than welcome to continue raising these topics. As for why I haven't yet addressed many of the issues being discussed here, it's because of some unfortunately-timed university activities (staying in another city until Wednesday and then flying home to visit family towards the end of next week) - you may have noticed I haven't been editing or online on Discord since the 27th. I will definitely be revisiting the various points and suggestions in this forum but unfortunately I cannot promise that it will be until my return to normal activity on November 7. 1358 (Talk) 21:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- As an addendum, until I can fully address the various issues and proposals raised here, let me just state that I agree that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to these issues and I fully support this endeavor to address them. 1358 (Talk) 21:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear you weren't intending to threaten to ban me as a result of me raising such an important issue. If it wasn't meant to be a threat, could I ask why you brought up the civility policy in the first place? Especially in the context you mentioned it in, it seemed as though you brought it up specifically in response to me suggesting that your reasons for voting 'no' may have been influenced by unconscious bias. I also understand that university and real life can very easily get in the way of things, but you were clearly able to read the essay in enough depth to identify that I had alluded to you. I find it concerning that, knowing you had limited time, you prioritised objecting to details instead of acknowledging the very serious problem at the heart of the site you've been an administrator of for ten years. The only points you responded to, from the entire 3,000 word essay about sexism and misogyny, was to clarify the purpose of the consensus policy and to object to statements you felt were personal accusations. It's disappointing that you were able to read multiple discussion responses but have still failed to acknowledge that Wookieepedia has been and continues to be an unsafe environment for women. Dropbearemma (she/her) 11:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- As an addendum, until I can fully address the various issues and proposals raised here, let me just state that I agree that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to these issues and I fully support this endeavor to address them. 1358 (Talk) 21:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- My reference to the Civility policy was not intended as a threat. Subtle and polite threats have been used by other admins in the past so I can completely understand why it was interpreted that way. However, let me make it crystal-clear that I will not block anyone who engages in a good-faith discussion on this topic and nobody should be afraid of voicing their opinion in that respect. Emma and others are more than welcome to continue raising these topics. As for why I haven't yet addressed many of the issues being discussed here, it's because of some unfortunately-timed university activities (staying in another city until Wednesday and then flying home to visit family towards the end of next week) - you may have noticed I haven't been editing or online on Discord since the 27th. I will definitely be revisiting the various points and suggestions in this forum but unfortunately I cannot promise that it will be until my return to normal activity on November 7. 1358 (Talk) 21:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- After looking further into the incidents being called out, it's evident to me that there's been some complacency since the overturns last year, and thus the problems that were not as notorious as the two banned admins (and the breast image) have slipped by. I'm open to see these proposed changes get drafted and onwards in order to welcome more non-male editors. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 17:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- I absolutely love these proposed changes for tackling sexism and misogyny on Wookieepedia. I've been away from daily activity on here so I'm not fully aware of any incidents that may have occurred, but there are definitely institutional factors in why Wookieepedia is not appealing for women to participate in. Also, we all also have implicit bias, and it's important to be aware of that and acknowledge it so that we can take steps to confront it. Same goes with any racial and LGBTQ+ matters. We've definitely come a far way from last year's reforms, but more can be done with other aspects. I think Fandom would be a huge help in providing advice on initiatives in addition to the current proposals. While I've taken a step back from participating in Wookieepedia, I fully support these initiatives to continue to make this a safe space for all and will continue to do so while I'm part of this site in any degree. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I know this thread is several weeks old already, but I think I should make it clear that I absolute support any and all efforts to make Wookieepedia a place where all feel welcome, which perhaps I did not do effectively by commenting on other portions of the thread. In order for Wookieepedia to be the most comprehensive encyclopedia out there, we need many more editors, so it's critical that we make welcoming all editors a priority, which it very clearly used to not be. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 18:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've been a silent supporter of this SH for a while but a comment from a great person made me realize I need to do better and be a vocal supporter. As a non-binary person I am not immune from being sexist, espicially living the majority of my life (and continuing to outside of the internet) as a male-presenting individual. I recongize there are things that I can actively and forever improve on and will strive to. Step 1 is listening to those who speak up, thank you Emma. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 00:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that any sexism and misogyny is absolutly unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. However, during my short time on wookieepedia, I have not witnessed realy any sexism and misogyny occuring on wookieepedia itself. It seems like a lot of this occurs on discord which I do not particpate in. In Forum:TC:TCs for List of sexual references in Star Wars Emma listed a large list of things which seem very sexist, all of wich occured on discord with the one exeption of xd's mentioning of the civility policy in this very SH. I don't think xd's mention above was sexist, as saying that people voting against immi are sexist is an accusation that cannot be proved or disproved. Furthermore, xd clarified that he "will not block anyone who engages in a good-faith discussion on this topic and nobody should be afraid of voicing their opinion in that respect." In light of Spookywilloww's 36-0 ascension to admin, I cannot fathom how one can say that the people voted against Immi Thrax "because she's a woman", when not a single person voted against Spooky's nomination. I have seen lots of evidence in past comments of extreme sexism and misogyny on wookieepedia, but not a whole lot right now. (I didn't partipate in Immi's nomination because I didn't feel like I was qaulified to vote as I was very new to wookieepedia at the time, and I didn't fully unstand all this issues at play) -ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola
- Let us not dismiss the misogyny that came into play during Immi's RFA. Voting for Spooky is not a free pass for the many misogynistic actions that have taken place within the Wookieepedia community. As you can well see, Immi was held to a vastly higher standard compared to male editors, and the failure to acknowledge the calling out of this misogyny (e.g. by ecks on this very thread) reflects the community's existing sexism. You may not see it so, but as Emma said in the original essay, this issue really isn't up to male editors to decide. OOM 224 (he/him) 17:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- My understanding is that you and others believe the reason for people not voting for immi is because she's a woman. If that is the case, which it very well might be, then why would those same people vote for another woman? They are two very different people, and in my mind a logical reason why one why vote for one and not the other is becuase of their contributions to the wiki, which suggests that people vote based not on gender, but by the qaulity and attributes of the canidate. "Voting for Spooky is not a free pass for the many misogynistic actions that have taken place within the Wookieepedia community." agreed, but as a stated in my previos post, I have not seen a lot of evidence of this happening. My perception is that most of the bad behavior happens on discord, but I could very well be mistaken. -ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The reason people brought up for not voting for Immi was not that she is a woman, it was that she wasn't meeting 4 times the requirements for being an admin. Let's be of good faith here and not say that we don't see where the misogyny is when people are asking a woman to meet 4 times the requirement, and say that she hasn't contributed enough, even tho she contributed more than a male bureaucrat in the last months. The fact that Immi's opposition was rooted in misogyny doesn't change because Spook wasn't met with the same arguments. Those are two different points in time, two different contexts, and two people with a different wook history. Many things happened between the two, many eyes were opened. The nature of an event isn't changed by what comes after. The opposition Immi met was misogynistic. It was misogynistic when it happened. It was misogynistic one month after, two months after, and it still is. It would still have been misogynistic if Spook's vote was a failure, and it still is even tho Spook's vote was a success. If, at the point in time where it happened, it was rooted in misogyny, the fact that something different happened doesn't change that. Change isn't retroactive. We can't go "oh, people are less misogynistic now, so they weren't back then!" It's sophism. Also, per Wookieepedia:Discord, the discord server acts as a extension of the wiki. Therefore, we cannot say that Wook doesn't have a misogyny problem because it "only happens on discord" (which is not true), and I don't get the point of bringing this up- even if it happens on discord, Discord is a place with Wook editors, so it is a Wook issue. HeadSpikesWalls (she/they)
(talk!) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The reason people brought up for not voting for Immi was not that she is a woman, it was that she wasn't meeting 4 times the requirements for being an admin. Let's be of good faith here and not say that we don't see where the misogyny is when people are asking a woman to meet 4 times the requirement, and say that she hasn't contributed enough, even tho she contributed more than a male bureaucrat in the last months. The fact that Immi's opposition was rooted in misogyny doesn't change because Spook wasn't met with the same arguments. Those are two different points in time, two different contexts, and two people with a different wook history. Many things happened between the two, many eyes were opened. The nature of an event isn't changed by what comes after. The opposition Immi met was misogynistic. It was misogynistic when it happened. It was misogynistic one month after, two months after, and it still is. It would still have been misogynistic if Spook's vote was a failure, and it still is even tho Spook's vote was a success. If, at the point in time where it happened, it was rooted in misogyny, the fact that something different happened doesn't change that. Change isn't retroactive. We can't go "oh, people are less misogynistic now, so they weren't back then!" It's sophism. Also, per Wookieepedia:Discord, the discord server acts as a extension of the wiki. Therefore, we cannot say that Wook doesn't have a misogyny problem because it "only happens on discord" (which is not true), and I don't get the point of bringing this up- even if it happens on discord, Discord is a place with Wook editors, so it is a Wook issue. HeadSpikesWalls (she/they)
- My understanding is that you and others believe the reason for people not voting for immi is because she's a woman. If that is the case, which it very well might be, then why would those same people vote for another woman? They are two very different people, and in my mind a logical reason why one why vote for one and not the other is becuase of their contributions to the wiki, which suggests that people vote based not on gender, but by the qaulity and attributes of the canidate. "Voting for Spooky is not a free pass for the many misogynistic actions that have taken place within the Wookieepedia community." agreed, but as a stated in my previos post, I have not seen a lot of evidence of this happening. My perception is that most of the bad behavior happens on discord, but I could very well be mistaken. -ThrawnChiss7
- OOM and HeadSpikesWalls have already excellently covered most points while I was asleep, so I'm only going to address a small part of your complaint: every sexist and misogynistic incident on discord happens on Wookieepedia. Discord is exactly as much officially Wookieepedia as the wiki itself is. This is reaffirmed by the bureaucrat Imperators II here (it was the quickest reference to this rule that I could find, but it is definitely also stated on the wiki itself). Additionally - and I know that the admins are working to change this, but it hasn't happened yet - the discord is the main way to get involved with the community itself. It's where you can ask questions and get help from other users, and it is where you make friends with them, as it is very difficult to do that only through talk pages. By dismissing the incidents on the discord, you're saying that women don't deserve to be able to be part of the community and feel safe. They don't deserve to have casual, lighthearted discussions with other editors. We should exile ourselves only to the wiki, where the only feasible places to ask questions are on admin talk pages or through the status article nomination process, which is aimed at users who want to commit to an extensive process where more experienced users go through an article you've written with a fine-tooth comb, and you're only eligible to nominate finished articles that you've personally written the majority of. You may personally not have witnessed it, but humans are perfectly capable of the concept of object permanence - things still exist when you're not looking at them!
When I was discussing this TC with my friends before I put it up, I initially expressed discomfort with the concept of deleting the revision history of every statement that needed to be redacted, instead of only the most heinous ones, because I wanted to be able to point to them as examples of the sexism and misogyny on Wook. The discussion on the TC, however, changed my mind. The reality is that nothing will ever be enough for some men. No matter how much evidence we provide, they will find ways to make it not count. It's clear that our word means nothing to certain men, and I am heartbroken that there's apparently no way to stop you thinking so little of us. Dropbearemma(she/her) 02:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I believe you when you say sexist things happen on discord, and that it is a 100% a part of wookieepdia. However, as I am not part of the discord, I am merely saying that from my perspective, I can't find much sexism currently happening on starwars.fandom.com. (I've seen lots of evidence of major sexism in the past) To further reafirm, all editors need to be treated with fairness and respect, and implying in any way, shape or form that people from demographics that are not your own are somehow inferior or worse then your own demographic is wrong. I just havn't seen much evidence on starwars.fandom.com that people now think that woman editors are somehow, for the lack of a better term, "worse" than men editors, especially from the current administration. I know people will bring up xd's statements regarding immi's rfa, but he's banned, and from the current admin team I've seen nothing to suggest they're not willing to help and support these efforts. All people should be treated with fairness and respect, but I can't find much concrete evidence that wookieepedians aren't doing that in 2023.-ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 02:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you cannot see it, then you have not been looking. This SH thread and various other places have examples. I also invite you to look at Forum:CT:Pronouns_in_infobox, where there have also been examples of recent biogtry on Wookieepedia. Given that Discord is part of Wookieepedia as a whole, as you have a policy for it here, this also means that things that happen there are brought to the wiki. You not seeing it on the wiki itself does not mean it has not happened- I would recommend broadening your horizons to check elsewhere so you can see it for yourself. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 03:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- A genuine question, since you seem to find this very important: why do you think it's important that you, personally, have not seen anything you consider sexist on the wiki? What significance does it have? How does it add to the ongoing discussion? Dropbearemma
(she/her) 13:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that I find it "important", it is merely my personal opinion and view, which I like to defend, and it is definitly not "important". Important seems to imply that it should be taken into great consideration when making decisions, and just becuase one person can't see the full scope of the sexism on the wiki shouldn't be treated as "important". The reason I added it to the discussion was to simply add another viewpoint to the discussion, one that didn't really conform to all the other views. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone by impling that sexist actions didn't exist towards them, becuase my ignorance does not mean sexism doesn't happen.-ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 14:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any value in repeatedly stating you hadn't seen any, since my list was hardly exhaustive - there are absolutely more examples of sexism on the wiki, but I'm not going to go to the bother of finding them, because I don't owe you anything! By repeatedly, exhaustingly, responding to provided evidence that you haven't personally seen anything, despite admitting that there's an entire dimension of wookieepedia that you have never participated in, all you've done is prove you are incapable of listening to us. Your ignorance added nothing to the discussion, because you are not the arbiter of what sexism is or how much is on wook. You can find plenty of examples, including on this very page, of men not believing us and denying the continued existence of sexism on the wiki. Your opinion was neither unique nor useful. Dropbearemma
(she/her) 22:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that I find it "important", it is merely my personal opinion and view, which I like to defend, and it is definitly not "important". Important seems to imply that it should be taken into great consideration when making decisions, and just becuase one person can't see the full scope of the sexism on the wiki shouldn't be treated as "important". The reason I added it to the discussion was to simply add another viewpoint to the discussion, one that didn't really conform to all the other views. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone by impling that sexist actions didn't exist towards them, becuase my ignorance does not mean sexism doesn't happen.-ThrawnChiss7
- I believe you when you say sexist things happen on discord, and that it is a 100% a part of wookieepdia. However, as I am not part of the discord, I am merely saying that from my perspective, I can't find much sexism currently happening on starwars.fandom.com. (I've seen lots of evidence of major sexism in the past) To further reafirm, all editors need to be treated with fairness and respect, and implying in any way, shape or form that people from demographics that are not your own are somehow inferior or worse then your own demographic is wrong. I just havn't seen much evidence on starwars.fandom.com that people now think that woman editors are somehow, for the lack of a better term, "worse" than men editors, especially from the current administration. I know people will bring up xd's statements regarding immi's rfa, but he's banned, and from the current admin team I've seen nothing to suggest they're not willing to help and support these efforts. All people should be treated with fairness and respect, but I can't find much concrete evidence that wookieepedians aren't doing that in 2023.-ThrawnChiss7
- Let us not dismiss the misogyny that came into play during Immi's RFA. Voting for Spooky is not a free pass for the many misogynistic actions that have taken place within the Wookieepedia community. As you can well see, Immi was held to a vastly higher standard compared to male editors, and the failure to acknowledge the calling out of this misogyny (e.g. by ecks on this very thread) reflects the community's existing sexism. You may not see it so, but as Emma said in the original essay, this issue really isn't up to male editors to decide. OOM 224 (he/him) 17:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I just want to add that personal anecdotes of not seeing discrimination does not mean that the discrimination did not, or does not, take place and actually minimizes and diminishes the impact it has on the victims. While it may not seem much to you, it is akin to saying "It's not that bad", "I don't think it's a problem anymore" and even "You're making it out worse than it is". Misogyny and bigotry aren't things that we just eliminate, they are a constant battle to fight and overcome both in our own prejudices and perceptions and in wider society, which values individuals based on who they are. We need to be mindful that words have impact and words have power, to think otherwise is folly. Words can instill confidence, fear, anger, joy, love and hate, and the minimization of how others feel reduces their experience and, to a degree, dehumanizes them. While that may not be the intention, the effect is real and we should not be indifferent to it. Manoof (he/him/his)
10:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- As a female who has experienced such nastiness, I commend this post and the fact that admins support it. I hope that the same strict policy will be put in place for anti-ableism, including for that against those who are neurodiverse. Something heartbreaking went down on Wook's Discord channel a couple years ago, and no one should ever need to go through that again. Many thanks for everyone's efforts! I know society in general is looking at policies such as this as "woke" and therefore fight them, but it's nothing more than being decent and understanding of our fellow Earth inhabitants. BRAVO! Red Heathen 20:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Progress update: lately in the Wook's ongoing series of revisiting old policies, administrative autonomy policy is being revamped, and the consensus policy is also getting discussed. We are also voting on abolishing what is effectively an admin veto on votes to promote/demote admins. Last but certainly not least, the administration has released a statement apologising for the culture of discrimination both in the past and in present times: Forum:SH:An Apology from the Administration for Wookieepedia's Harmful History. Looking forward to brighter days ahead. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is good news! When revisiting your policies, would you please consider how ableism is handled? Not only here but also in the official Discord channel? Red Heathen 23:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- The horrible ableist policy that I think you're referring to here has been repealed, and the anti-discrimination policy explicitly mentions ableism as a blockable offense, whether done on the wiki itself or in our Discord server, since that is effectively an extension of the site. I can assure you that the admin team will stay vigilant for any instances of discrimination, including ableism. OOM 224 (he/him) 23:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is good news! When revisiting your policies, would you please consider how ableism is handled? Not only here but also in the official Discord channel? Red Heathen 23:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Notes
- ↑ The Difference Between Sexism and Misogyny, and Why It Matters
- ↑ We spoke in a private Discord server.
- ↑ Popper, Karl R. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge, 2012 [1945].
- ↑ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, United Nations, 1948, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights : "Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of [all genders] and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom"