Forum:SH:The way I see things

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. C4-DE Bot (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

---

[Redacted by administration] As an observer of recent events, I feel that we have basically instilled the same fear of speaking the mind in people that was present under Toprawa and Culator's era, and we're back to a stage where a few people hold the influence over all others. From my perspective, a good community is one where even the most controversial opinions are examined with an open mind, where people from different walks of life come together for a common goal regardless of their beliefs. When certain ideals are imposed on everyone else, that's when issues arise. [Redacted by administration]

I have long 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. We need people of differing opinions on how to further improve the wiki to challenge, politely I might add, and discuss with each other in order to refine existing thoughts or formulate new ones and best implement them in the wiki, as that is how great ideas are forged. A community of people who always express agreement benefits no one. After all, we are all here for one goal: Make the best resource for Star Wars on the internet. UberSoldat93 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• I'm currently in class and I won't have the chance to read this all the way theough until later today (and rest assured I will), but I want to address the paragraph about terminology such as "slave" and the like. I wholly agree that if Star Wars won't shy away from it (except for the Slave I), we should not either - slave is not an outwardly offensive term despite the negative connotations of slavery itself. I can't quite say I agree on the entire basis of assuming gender from pronouns, but at the same time I 100% understand the concern from the common association between pronouns and gender. There doesn't appear to have been a solid consensus on how/when/if gender is assumed from pronouns or not, and at the moment the only thing firmly in policy is having pronouns listed themselves. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with the statements in the above paragraph. I don't think using the word "slave" is somehow insulting or offensive, but as others see differently, it is a little more grammatically clunkly to use "enslaved being" versus "slave", but that is a small price to pay in order to not offend some readers. -ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 16:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Having now read the SH thread in full, I don't really have much else to say except that my thoughts align with those of Imperators posted below. He expressed it far more succinctly than I could ever hope to. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• 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)
• "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." I don't understand how these two things can be conflicting. In my mind, our job is to be an encyclopedia that contain all star wars content that has notability. I personally disagree with the decision to redact the title of the article. I know WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't exist anymore, but I still believe in the principle. I don't know what is on the Pornography article, and I don't want to know, but I believe it is our duty to document all of star wars. Of course sexist and discriminatory langauge needs to be removed from articles, but that is different from simply presenting the information in the sources from a neutral viewpoint. I also believe it is our job to document things that may be seen as "obscene" or "profane". I understand that these views are somewhat against fandom's terms of use, but I think they prevent us from our porpuse of being the best source of any information relating to star wars, and if Fandom prevents us for fullfilling our purpose of being the most comprehsive star wars resource on the internet, then perhaps we should leave. -ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 16:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The article whose title was censored was quite literally named after a slur. Ridiculously offensive to keep it, and that's even with the fact it violates Fandom's ToS aside. As for keeping offensive or obscene content, there are ways to address and document these things without citing it ver batim or by showing it explicitly. If a character says a real-life slur, for example, there is no reason we need to document said slur. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • ThrawnChiss, I want to address something specific from your reply. Us being the most comprehensive Star Wars resource on the internet absolutely does not require us to use slurs, outdated terms, or do things that harm others. When our practices harm actual, real life people, then we are absolutely in the wrong and need to do better. You are more than welcome to start a vote on moving if you feel so strongly about it, but if the entire purpose behind it is allowing us to use slurs and offend minorities, I implore you to think about why specifically you feel we need to harm people. Supreme Emperor ^Holocomm 21:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Removing slurs from articles is not a new thing. For a long time List of phrases and slang/Legends had a real-word slur as slang for Trandoshan, but was removed a year ago. Was the author transphobic or unintentionally made an unfortunate mistake? We don't know, but just because it is valid in-universe information does not require that we cover it. It does seem like we've some rapid changes recently which I'm unsure about, however we should not be documenting real-world slurs in our pages. Finally, this does not impact our comprehensibly, the redacted character still has a page (Identified female rebel (Kabaira)) with the rest of her biographical information still listed. Rsand 30 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 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. [redacted at user request] 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".^[1]
  
  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,^[2] 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)