Forum:GreenReaper's bureaucrat status

Forums: Index > Creatures Forum (wiki) > GreenReaper's bureaucrat status

Hi everyone. It's come to my attention that we need to discuss whether GreenReaper should continue being on the administration team here and find out what the community consensus on this is.

I was approached by a couple of community members who shared evidence that his presence can pose a danger to trans people and others, and that he understands the consequences of his personal policies but places his ideas about semantics above people’s sense of safety. As a result, having GreenReaper as an admin seems to create both a practical concern to trans Creatures fans, given the many biographical pages on this site, and a symbolic gesture of disrespect to a community that values inclusiveness. If you’d like to see specifics, his WikiFur article cites most of the public evidence I received and has some citations about its likely ramifications for community members’ safety and comfort.

While GreenReaper has been a strong contributor here in the past, these issues nonetheless make us question whether it is appropriate for him to be leading the wiki as part of the admin team. So below is a place to state your opinion about whether he should be an admin and bureaucrat, optionally with a brief explanation.

The discussion will be open for approximately one week, and please remember the guideline against personal attacks. Please sign your message with four tildes (~~~~).

Sgeo^(talk) 23:40, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn’t clear, Wikia only considers opinions posted to this site when deciding whether or not to demote a bureaucrat. They will, as far as I know, ignore outside discussion. Sgeo^(talk) 07:18, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

First off, I'm incredibly disappointed to hear about these secret discussions. Since when is this community run behind closed doors? My own experience of all this has been bizarre and abrupt. But let's put that aside for a moment.

The answer to your concern over biographical pages is clear, as long as you document it as policy: if the Creatures Community truly uses a pronoun for that person, that is the pronoun to use in articles revolving around that community; else you use their name. This is a compromise which I think everyone can live with; if there is a genuine question over what pronoun the community is using for a person (usually by their own design), we should not be asserting one at all.

Now: I've been accused of "transphobia", but I reject this - the word is misused. I like most trans people, and I count some as friends, even after all this. I simply don't want to make statements - about anyone - which I do not believe to be accurate. You claim my current status is a "gesture of disrespect" to inclusiveness, but where is the respect for and inclusion of my beliefs? If we fudge the truth, here, in our community reference, then what is the point? Besides, I have not gone around "outing" trans people; I just don't want to be forced to say what amounts, in my eyes, to a falsehood. Nor do I want this for anyone else. And, crucially, I don't think we have to do this in order for everyone to be happy.

As to why I should remain an admin and bureaucrat, I will say it once: Creatures is a video game revolving around cute fuzzy virtual animals. It is not about trans people. The community and this wiki do not revolve around trans issues. The CC may well have trans people in it, but they deserve no special say in how this wiki is run, or who runs it. People are made administrators because they are trusted not to break the wiki. They are made bureaucrats because they are trusted to manage the user rights of other users, after approval of such changes by the community of editors. Their status derives from their contributions. (While I respect your own contributions, you're the only person here who gained their rights without going through this process.)

Editors are not given special powers based on their personal opinions. Instead, their beliefs play into their editorial contributions, which ultimately impact the wiki's policies - but in this, they are just one of many. Anyone who believes that a wiki leader can or should use their position to enforce an unpopular decision based on their own point of view has fundamentally misunderstood their role - and, perhaps, how wikis work in general. Leaders have to gain the consensus of other editors that their path is the right one - as I have tried to do with my proposal above - and the community as a whole has to find a solution that everyone can live with… including administrators, who are not only members of your community, but who must enforce the result. The alternative is division and angst, as people lose faith in the legitimacy of the process; they refuse to follow policies and decisions handed down from on high - and ultimately, they leave, taking their ongoing contributions with them.

In short, all this fear and anger about my intentions is misplaced. I have not abused my powers, here or elsewhere, to the detriment of trans people. I want a solution to this issue which is respectful of trans people's concerns and my own personal beliefs. The only people who have abused their power are those who sought to oust me from my position as a respected member of this community, based on their own beliefs, without public debate. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:21, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've been around the CC a long time, over a decade in fact, under different names-- it more or less introduced me to the internet at large, and I owe it a considerable debt (especially in light of the disclosure I'm about to make here). Mental illness has considerably cut back on my ability to interact in the past few years. As well as destitution; incidentally, due to being trans. :) So this is a very touchy subject for me, and I'll make no illusions otherwise. Full disclosure: I haven't had the most illustrious history with the CC in the nearest-past (abuse of mod privileges, when I had them; harassment; and very nearly getting myself issued a DMCA). I've been turning this antisociality around on medication, and worked to recuse myself when I'm in no condition for talking. This is not one of those times.

My objection to GR having admin power or admin respect has nothing to do with his edit history, community history, or ability to adhere to policy. It has to do with principle; he's explicitly said, here and elsewhere, that his opinions are, and should be, more important than others' safety.

His opinion could've gotten me killed if he took it on himself to express it to the wrong people at the wrong time. I am not an outlier in terms of trans youths' situations; this happens all the time. He is correct in it not being a CC or Creatures issue. It is a worldwide issue.

No amount of reassurance that policy will be respected, or that this never would've happened to me, or wouldn't happen to anyone else-- nothing would make me comfortable about this underlying value, 'law overrides safety, instead of serving it', being held by someone with administrative power and sway in the Creatures community. Even with the best intentions, it can grievously harm, often by negligence, often people who are in the most vulnerable situations to begin with. (And then, holders of this viewpoint too often have the gall to say 'you wouldn't have this problem if you followed [law].' GR has said similar things to me before, so this isn't a theoretical issue for me.)

I'm especially concerned by the way he presses 'what about my opinion'-- this pressure to compromise with exclusion speaks volumes that other's rights end where his begin. This is not a good thing. This is not a good thing in an admin, especially. An admin's philosophy must begin in respect. (This is a lesson I learned the hard way.)

Inclusion cannot abide exclusion, and as nicely as it's dressed up, 'trans people aren't officially [gender] until they've had surgery, and for the sake of linguistic honesty, deserve public scrutiny until then' is an exclusive and violent conviction. *Especially* in the context of a video game about fuzzy animals marketed to kids, some of whom are, inevitably, trans. The platitude 'I have trans friends' is meaningless. I'm sure many have heard the old shutdown 'My black friend says I'm not racist'?

To summarize and emphasize: The supposedly-personal conviction, which was made very not-personal when it was applied to others, 'my opinion about trans people overrides their safety, and is something that must be *compromised* with' is being placed directly upon minors primarily, including trans minors, by GR's own statement. Who are, unavoidably, among the most frequent victims of transphobic violence. As a result, GR has wilfully aligned himself with a particularly noxious kind of transphobia, regardless of intention.

I've made my own case about my personal discomfort, but I think that stands on its own as an example of why he is not an appropriate administrator or leader for any part of the Creatures Community. Xankriegor 08:04, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

I feel I have shown my respect for you, and followed my duty as an editor and administrator, by proposing policies to address your concerns regarding our articles. I cannot change an underlying difference in values, nor do I feel ousting those who holds differing views to other editors is beneficial - to this wiki, or our community.

Imagine if someone said, honestly, "openly trans people make me feel unsafe; they should not hold status within our community". You would quite rightly object, not least because their concerns do not preclude you from fulfilling a useful role. Dismissing members of an outgroup from privileged positions, regardless of capability or conduct, reduces the pool of talent within a community and results in less-effective organizations.

By the breadth of your arguments, you would exclude those who concern you from responsible positions in all communities that may have trans people in them - i.e. everywhere. Again, this is just what has been done in the past to minorities who were felt to present a danger to society - trans, gay, black, etc. Even genuine discomfort did not justify the actions taken against them, nor were these actions ultimately deemed beneficial, because their differences did not impact on their abilities.

I raised my opinion because I have an equal right to be comfortable with the policies of this wiki as any other. Becoming an administrator on a wiki does not mean dismissing your own beliefs, values, and opinions. Indeed, you are expected to actively participate in debates, before working with other editors to hammer out a final agreement which takes into account differing viewpoints, including your own. That is how a wiki works.

For all that you have tried to make of it, being an administrator merely grants the ability to take privileged actions to further the goals of the wiki, such as deleting off-topic articles or blocking users who continually vandalize the site. These powers have been given to many editors because they are trusted not to abuse them - and only abuse can justify their removal. Likewise, for the bureaucrat role. --GreenReaper^(talk) 00:04, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

I'm K@nilb; I've been a fan of Creatures for several years, and am actually agender. I've often used the Creatures Wiki to look up information about Creatures; there's not really another source of information like it. I'd personally say that the Creatures Community should remain an entirely accepting place, and that it's best to try to ensure any moderators keep safety of community members as one of their main priorities. Due to this, I agree with Sgeo's proposal to demote GreenReaper. I would not be able to feel safe in a community led by him. Kanilb 21:00, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

Even though my wiki editing skills are more than limited and I presumably posted this not in the "correct way", I am a creatures fan and developer of third party objects for years now and I would like to vent my opinion: GreenReaper is way too selfish over this whole grammar vs security thingy.

From his point of view, it's merely a question of "I don't wanna use him/her instead of her/him", for all the trans people he may or may not talk about, it is a question of social safety, emotional and, in some cases even physical health. Like xankriegor already pointed out: some trans people literally are in danger if the way they are became public, and behaviour like GR's is just too much of a risk. He says he would "not out other people", but that is exactly what he does. When everyone except him says "she" for example, people know something's foul. Same goes if everyone uses one way to refer to a person, but he uses his they/their 'compromise'. Anyone who has ever heard of this debate will know that GR only does it when he thinks that the used pronouns are 'wrong' and hence the person in question is according to GR's definition not a he/she, but a trans person. And yet again I have to give right to xankriegor: GreenReaper puts his personal ideas of such a tiny thing like grammar over the very health of human beings, which is something an admin in question just should. Not. Do.

Also, even though GR seems to disagree in this point: being an admin does incoporate personal opinion to some degree. What is the point of being an admin, when the whole community and all the mods "under", who are supposed to support you in your position, actually doubt you and what you think and do? I'll tell you: there is no point. An admin disliked by the community is more trouble than use. And this is exactly what will happen if you put GreenReaper back in charge for the Creatures Wiki. Papriko 20:41, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm willing to use whatever pronoun is used within the community when editing articles in the Creatures Wiki, precisely because they are intended to represent the view of the community, not that of the editor.

To you, my personal views may be "a tiny thing" involving grammar; to me, saying something that I don't believe is a really big deal. It is not fair to propose dilemmas where a person's health depends on me saying something I don't believe, when in practice I would not be the sole author of that dilemma, and indeed would have actively tried to avoid it. It's like saying "you must convert to [insert religion here] or we will kill a random person" - you would, in reality, try your best to avoid the situation.

I appreciate that you're new, and so I'll explain: no editor is "above" another here when it comes to their opinion, nor are administrators ranked or uniquely qualified to determine policy - instead, they are tasked with implementing it (traditionally, with a mop; the job involves a lot of cleaning up spam/vandalism).

What matters when it comes to the content of articles and policies is the quality of an editor's argument - whether you can convince others that your direction is the right one. Otherwise, they will, as you say, simply edit things in a different way. If you disagree with my version of an article, you have the power to change it; and if there is enough support for that change, all the rights in the world won't make it stick, if only because everyone can leave and edit somewhere else.

Ideally, this process results in articles (and policies) which have the approval of a large majority of editors, and which incorporates many points of view - but it only works as long as those who do have power use it in accordance with the decisions of those who don't. That's why it's so important to have a diverse mix of administrators who believe in this process, and a host willing to uphold the decisions of editors, rather than use technical power to enforce their own opinion. In my five years of hosting WikiFur, I have never done this - which is why you were linked to it to read about me, despite the fact that I have far more control over it than I have ever had over the Creatures Wiki. --GreenReaper^(talk) 01:19, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

The Creatures Community has always stood for respect for individuals' gender identity and other forms of self-identity (not community consensus-identity, at least where possible) as is commonly recognized in many such communities. This is especially important in a community which, like the Furry community, seems to have a higher percentage of trans individuals than the general public (I doubt we could get quantitative evidence for this, but my personal experience has shown it to be the case—I first learned of the existence of transgender identities in encountering trans people in the Creatures community).

For another take on this dispute, and for the record if this ever does come up, this is about more than just pronouns, it's about identity. Consider, for a completely randomly chosen example, if someone was 3/4 Bulgarian by birth, but they did not feel Bulgarian and did not identify as such and wished to not be considered Bulgarian in the occasional cases in which this came up. Now further suppose that if someone outed them as this, they may be subject to prejudice and violence. And say there was a person in our community who insisted on being allowed to refer to them as "Bulgarian" in our community spaces against their wishes because the person felt to do otherwise would be lying according to their personal definition of the word, which to them, should refer to a person's physical identity. And, for the purposes of discussion, say their ethnic identity was very hard to avoid, albeit the person tried to as much as possible for political reasons. In this entirely plausible, if completely hypothetical, scenario we would move to oust a leader of our community who insisted on disrespecting our identities and holding to our standards. And this scenario is exactly analogous to the present regarding gender identity and GreenReaper. We require all people in our community, especially our leaders, to respect our members' identities and hold to our standards and values in their interactions, not just in content pages on our wiki, but all discussion, to be a member of us and allowed in our space.

Further, GreenReaper has explicitly made comments on this subject such as “Ultimately, your wish to feel safe does not trump my wish to feel honest.”

And, unsurprisingly, even before the Creatures community became aware of this controversy, trans people have stated they feel uncomfortable being a member of any community led by GR (of which the Creatures community/wiki is only one).

Reference: http://adjectivespecies.com/2014/03/03/why-pronouns-are-important/

And while GR is correct in saying that some communities allow persons of all values to hold leadership positions, the Creatures community is not this way. We would not be comfortable—for example—with someone who publicly touted sexist or racist values. This is ESPECIALLY true in a community centered around “a video game revolving around cute fuzzy virtual animals” geared toward-, and with- a large number of children. So that point does not, in general, apply to this community at least: we have a need to feel safe in our own space.

So it seems, discussions of policy and philosophy aside, GR's presence as an admin, bureaucrat, or any leadership role is harmful to the wiki and larger Creatures community's existence, in that said presence makes community members and potential members uncomfortable and likely to leave or never join.

--RProgrammer 09:53, October 10, 2014 (UTC)