Code of conduct[edit]

It's interesting that we have a new Wikimedia Code of Conduct. Maybe we should start rooting out some of our own embedded racism that tends to insult editors who might be members of historically oppressed groups? A small initial step would be to rename Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Take a look at the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist. The problem was explained in June 2020, and there's been no motion yet.

In more civilized places that have a block list and a safe list. My preferred nomenclature when I'm speaking about computer security is naughty list and nice list. I am sure we can come up with something that does not have racial overtones and is also self-explanatory (which whitelist and blacklist are not). Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I support this 100%. What is necessary to make it happen?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, I have been asking for years to rename the spam blacklist to something like external link blocklist. The word "spam" invites endless arguments with people whose sites we have blocked for excellent reasons although they did not themselves add them as spam (e.g. petition sites, crowdfunders).

I don't think there are any good-faith arguments for not doing this. The fact that an individual editor might not consider "blacklist" to have any racist overtones is irrelevant: some people do see it, and are offended, and blocklist is a perfect synonym with none of the baggage. Wikipedia is not the kind of place where belligerent anti-wokeism drives policy. There's no reason not to do this. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha PackMecEng (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Not that I think the nomenclature issue is unimportant, but expecting this community to take it seriously is naive. PackMecEng's dismissive mockery is, sadly, par for the course here. I mean, this is a place where established editors advocate for welcoming neo-Nazis into our ranks (as long as they make "good edits"); where they insist that there's nothing racist about mocking Black people as "monkeys", where they see nothing "racially charged" about the term "lynching"... and again, these aren't random passing trolls. These are established editors. This is our community. MastCell ^Talk 02:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It is some people in our community, not our community. Without commenting on the specific people in the diffs you've linked, because I haven't done them the justice of really looking into it, I would say - as I have always said - that there are definitely people who should be escorted from the project for abusive/insulting behavior, even if they "make good edits". That's always been a very weak argument, because we know with certainty that we have had editors in the past (and of course, still today) who arguably made good edits, while simultaneously behaved in ways that were incredibly destructive, thus costing us far more good edits than a lifetime of their work could make up.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing or minimizing the issue - I'm encouraging you to reformulate just one aspect of your thinking here: people who make extremely bad (racist, misogynist etc.) arguments in the area of diversity and racism, are not members of the community in good standing - they are people who are on the way out, and we can and should actively work to remove them permanently.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, what MastCell just did is not fixable and it's a blatant violation of Section 3.1 in the Code of Conduct. He has repeatedly insulted & harassed me, and does the same thing at every opportunity that comes his way. Forgive me for being a bit disconcerted over his allegations, which he presented quite deceitfullly by not pinging me to this discussion. I'm sure one of his reasons for not wanting me here was that I would defuse his distorted, out-of-context allegations by presenting the simple facts; thereby, drawing closer scrutiny to his behavior and contributions as an admin and editor, who is clearly not here to help build the encyclopedia based on his McCarthy-style witch hunt. I have multiple diffs that support what I'm saying, and truly believe that you should investigate his actions more thoroughly, if no other reason than to clear those of us whose reputations he has wrongfully smeared. I welcome a closer investigation into my contributions and participation on WP. In fact, Jimbo, I just sent you an email. MastCell has lost trust among many members in the community because of his odd behavior and irratic contributions. He cannot be entrusted with the tools considering the above, and his approach to hunting down racism and ridding the project of racists, which just happen to include editors who simply disagree with his beliefs and political POV, none of which in most cases has anything to do with racism. Some people simply cannot process information correctly as evidenced by MastCell's comments throughout this and previous discussions on your TP, especially when the discussions involve such a sensitive topic that requires critical thinking skills, empathy and understanding. What he is doing is crying wolf and by doing so, he is distracting from the real issues and causing an even bigger problem. There is a longtime pattern of MastCell's behavior that demonstrates his repeated misrepresentations and hounding behavior. And Jimbo, please be aware that my RL identity on WP is known because I was doxxed in 2015 by Jytdog; therefore, MastCell's false allegations and misinterpretations of things I've said could cause me great harm. I am surprised that he hasn't already been desysopped in light of WMF's new Code of Conduct, which now begs the question, who enforces the Code? Atsme 💬 📧 15:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re "Without commenting on the specific people in the diffs you've linked..." — One of those diffs was mine. How about commenting on me? Bob K31416 (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, an admin has accused me of being racist on your talk page and it's not even the first time. I don't think that meets the Universal Code of Conduct and it would be nice if you said something about that. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No one accused you of being racist. You refused to acknowledge that "lynching" is a racially-charged term; I quoted your denial as an illustration of the difficulty in having a serious conversation about race-related issues in this community. By misrepresenting what happened, lashing out, and casting yourself as a victim, you're sort of underlining my point. MastCell ^Talk 10:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@MastCell:, in a response to one editor saying "Ha" you bring up three other editors' diffs who are not even engaged in this discussion. While the "Ha" comment may have been the tiniest of deviations from the OPs discussion, you went out on a whole new tangent, sidetracking this in a way that was not helpful at all. If you had wished to address the "ha" comment it would have been more appropriate to do so directly and not bring in diffs of comments by others who were not even engaged. Lastly, if you're going to do this sort of thing, how about you go and let them know?--MONGO (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, if I present an earnest idea that I feel strongly about, and you dismiss it with the single word "Ha", then that's not "the tiniest of deviations". It's a complete invalidation of the idea itself, a refusal to even treat it as worthy of engagement. As for my commentary, I don't view it as a tangent. I thought I was very clear: PackMecEng's dismissive mockery of Jehochman's proposal wasn't an isolated reflex, but rather part of a broader culture here. I provided some additional examples of that culture, drawn from my own recent experience. We can't expect a serious discussion of a subtle renaming proposal in a culture where editors excuse the use of obvious racial slurs, or welcome Nazis into our ranks (but only well-behaved Nazis, of course!). It's like expecting people to solve a complex linear-algebra problem when they won't even acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, if the thrust of your participation here is aimed at proving that I'm a terrible person/editor/admin, then let's continue the discussion at my talkpage, or wherever else you'd like. I don't see the continued personalization as helpful here; it's another distraction to avoid grappling with the actual cultural issue that these sorts of comments illustrate. MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It is the tiniest of deviations...and getting all butt hurt over something like that is absurd. They wrote "ha" and you used that as an excuse to go full volley fire and bring up diffs others had made then try and paint a broad brush not only against them, but the "culture" of the site, widely construed. Expect many to not have a serious discussion with you if your retorts are to be ones where you use this very public page to malign others you apparently feel should face sanctions. You feel that strongly about it go file a case at AE or arbcom or at least have the decency to act like an admin and ping or notify them that you have brought up their infractions in such a public place.--MONGO (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not about 'butt-hurt'. It's not about maligning others. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it's about self-righteousness and condescension. I will say what I said before again, there is no way to have a serious discussion if you have to capitulate to one parties moral framework from the start. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nah. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Kyohi, if I'm like, "Hey, I don't think we should welcome neo-Nazis here", and you respond by insisting: "I won't capitulate to your moral framework!", then maybe you're right that no further illustration of the problem was necessary. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And here's the self-righteousness again. Let me make it pointedly clear, dehumanizing people is absolutely wrong, and your framing of "Hey, I don't think we should welcome neo-Nazis here" presumes that the person you are ejecting is a neo-nazi. This is dehumanization, it is denying people positive human traits and labeling them as monsters. And this is the push back you're getting from people, this is the well poisoning that people don't like. Stop labeling people. It's that simple. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's really unfortunate the way that you are amplifying the neo-Nazi comment as if that is the main point here, and I'm astounded by the fact that you don't realize what a blatant strawman that is. No, we should not welcome neo-Nazi's. Also, admins such as you and the OP should be way more careful not to create a chilling effect by presuming the moral high ground on the whitelist/blacklist issue and trying to publicly shame those who question the totality of your argument. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the term racist was not used, but your framing of the subject gives a strong implication that rejecting "lynching" as a racially-charged term is a substantial moral failing with regards to race. There is no way to have a serious discussion if you have to capitulate to one parties moral framework from the start. --Kyohyi (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it's basically the "I'm not touching you" kind of argument. Who me? I would neeevvveerr call you racist... I'm just trying to have a serious conversation! Though that conversation never comes nor was it meant to. PackMecEng (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record here is what I wrote in the diff that MastCell linked to: I disagree with MastCell's characterization of "lynching" as a "racially charged" word. Lynching doesn't just refer to lynchings of blacks in the US. Accusing someone of lynching doesn't mean you're accusing them of being racist, but rather of "mob justice". It's not a nice thing to accuse your colleagues of, but it's not an accusation of racism. Everyone can decide for themselves whether MastCell is being accurate in describing that as saying "nothing 'racially charged' about the term 'lynching'". Of course lynching can be (and in the US often is) a racially charged word, just not the particular use of "lynching" that MastCell called "racially charged" in that particular discussion. MastCell was arguing that the use of the word lynching meant the editor was calling other editors racist. I was saying that this particular use of the word lynching was a reference to mob justice not racism. Now MastCell is using my comment to suggest editors on Wikipedia are racist. Kind of ironic, that twist. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomenclature is exceedingly important because it pervades all our thinking. I don't mind an uphill trek. That's what this will be, but we should try to make Wikipedia more welcoming. Jehochman ^Talk 02:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean maybe just stop asserting everyone you disagree with is racist? But that is getting off topic for this discussions. PackMecEng (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, this attitude is not welcome at all here on my talk page. I am unaware of anyone who has taken the position that "everyone I disagree with is racist". Some people are racist, of that there is no doubt. Other people don't take the issue of racism seriously enough. And still other people are getting on with the business of positive change. You should support that, and not pick petty fights for no reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of racism against editors in good standing for no other reason than disagreeing with them on political issues is never acceptable and to downplay it as petty is downright disturbing and dismissive of a serious problem we face here. No that is not okay and never okay. Yes we should call out racism, but we should also not allow it to be thrown around carelessly as he has done so many times. It cheapens it and does harm to actual minorities that could be affected by actual racism. PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

While of course I agree in a formal sense, I also think that isn't really a thing, empirically speaking, that is a major problem here. Insensitivity to the issue as exhibited by pointless comments like "ha" in response to an uncontroversial suggestion? Yeah, I see that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

By not responding to my previous message, and looking at your response to PackMecEng's (quite good) comment, I have to say that in this section I don't have a very good impression of you. Perhaps you'd like to explain what you meant by "While of course I agree in a formal sense...". It looks like you know she was right in that last message but you can't simply say so and instead have to add the cryptic hedging phrase, "in a formal sense". Bob K31416 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Bob, I can see why someone who wrote quite clearly "If an editor is a Nazi and makes useful contributions, that's a good thing" would not have a good impression of me. My view is that your position is so incredibly laughably wrong that isn't even worthy of serious engagement. Go away. Wikipedia is better than that. In the old days I would have blocked you permanently on sight of a comment like that - and I believe that's what should happen to you and will if you persist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks like the kind of thing that is done in dirty politics, where a person's statement is mischaracterized, taken out of context, and a false insinuation is made. BTW your threat of blocking is of no significance for me. In any case, good bye. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You should take a look at the discussion this came from. The community seems to hold a different view on if it is uncontroversial. While ha might not be the best response, I truly thought they were joking, it does not seem to be a serious question. PackMecEng (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

One can ask if someone like Uncle Chuck described in this article would be allowed to edit here. I remember that User:Wikid77 got blocked because due to a similar background he believed in certain wrong ideas about slavery in the US. The problem is then that we end up banning people based on feeling offended by their views, but in the end we end up having to tolerate people who hold far more relevant mistaken views, e.g. Trump supporters who believe that there was massive election fraud. A decade ago we had to deal with editors who strongly believed that global warming was a hoax.

The paradox is that the more relevant the issues are, the less offensive the mistaken views are. It's far more offensive to us if someone is homophobic today than 40 years ago when in many countries people started to debate gay rights. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The actual paradox is that sometimes the behaviour a total racist and and abslute non-racist may look totally identically. If you are living in Louisiana and you treat a black person with a fried chicken, most likely that is a blatant racist gesture. However, if you grown up in, e.g. Greenland, you meet some tourist, and you tell them "try this fried chicken, I am sure you will like it" - you do not care if that person is black, white or yellow. That is not a racism at all. It would be a nightmare if US local racial stereotypes will be applied to the rest of the world, but that is exactly what Jehochman proposes.

In addition, your article tells about the Bell curve in regard to races. To me, to discuss any difference between a black and white races would be a nonsence because no black race exist (black population is many times more diverse that all other races, and it would be ridiculous to speak about any common traits of "black people" except their skin colour (btw, we also were black when we came to Europe)). However, we at least should be allowed to discuss the actual or perceived differences between races to come to establish truth. How can that be possible if each our statement will be analyzed under a microscope for compliance with some "code of conduct", which (as I anticipate) will be developed primarily based on US realities, and which implicitly or even explicitly assumes we all are racists, and if we disagree with that, then we are vehement racists?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Briefly discussed previously: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 240#Blacklists. Stephen 00:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me add my humble 2 cents to this discussion. I do not consider myself a representative of "formerly oppressed population", but I don't think it would be correct to speak about my "embedded racism" either. I grown up far from the epicenter of the "black and white" conflict, neither I nor my ancestors ever had any relation to that, we never benefited from slave labour (more likely, my ancestors themselves were "white slaves"), and I simply do not understand lion's share of local (US/Western Europe) racist stereotypes. To me, "black" means just "black", and a black man is just a man who happened to have a black skin (nothing else). I am writing about that because you seem to forget one simple thing: people like me represent not a minority, but a majority of the international Wikipedia community: a humble accountant from Rio de Janeiro, a software engineer from New Delhi, a historian from Kiev, a mechanical engineer from Seoul - all of them do not consider themselves as "formerly oppressed population", but I cannot say they would agree they have to do something with their "embedded racism". To them, all those games around "blacklists" are just an awkward joke, and that is not a surprise that "Ha" comes from a user who displayed a Korean flag on their user page.

Whereas a battle against embedded racism is highly commendable, it would be not modest to impose one's own vision of what racism is on others. Remember, all those dances around "blacklists" is an attempt to resolve a local conflict between a fraction of population in some Western countries. It is by no means a really global problem. And that is why "Ha" is not an awkward reaction of one impolite Wikipedian. I would say the opposite: it may be a voice of a majority of the Wikipedia community. The very idea to separate people on "formerly oppressed groups" and "those who must fight against own embedded racism" is very destructive, partially because it polarises a society, partially because the very term "formerly oppressed groups" is intrinsically vague. That approach may be valid for some separate country like the US, where there is some consensus in a society on who is "formerly oppressed" and who has "embedded racism", but why do you think the rest 95% of the world population sees that problem at the same angle?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the longest version of "I don't see color" that I've ever seen; well done (?). --JBL (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm near the front of the line of people who think the US has had a troubled history (which we have not really begun to admit to ourselves yet), and still has serious problems, and is not a shining city on a hill for other countries to emulate. But at the same time, I'm always amazed how frequently I hear people from other places claim that *their* countries don't have the racism problem that the US has. It may manifest differently from place to place, but the number of countries that have not created some kind of caste system based on skin color and/or physical appearance and/or heredity is zero. And claims that pointing this fact out is the real problem because it is "polarizing" is also nearly universal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like "I don't see color" is supposed to be a reference to some popular meme, but I have no idea on what you are talking about. I DO see colours, but colours mean only colours for me. And I believe I am speaking on behalf of majority of human population: please, do not universalise your local social conflicts! I realise Wikipedia started in North America, and you guys have done an excellent job. However, English Wikipedia has become a global resource now, don't forget about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: I did not mean other countries are better than the US (most of them are worse), I meant their racial/ethnic problems are totally different. As I already said, the very idea to fight against racism is absolutely correct, but they way it is being done is hardly correct. In most cases, it is more an imitation. The US and Western Europe are still a role model for many less advanced countries, and if their "fight against racism" becomes a cargo cult style profanation, they discredit the very idea of the fight for social justice. I always respected Wikipedia for being free from redundant politecorrectness, and I will be seriously disappointed if that situation will change.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I suggest that, rather than rant about "cargo cult style profanation" (!!) just because someone is proposing to change "blacklist" to "blocklist", you spend a few minutes figuring out what it is about this change that upsets you so much? I'm guessing it would be slightly less silly to you if a list of spammers, conmen, evildoers, etc was widely called a "Paul Siebert list". I'm guessing you'd want to see that changed, even though it wouldn't bother 99.99% of the world's population. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I see absolutely no problem with renaming "blacklist" to "blocklist", except the latter, in contrast to the former does not seem to be an English word. I am against the idea that we ALL must "start rooting out some of our own embedded racism". Why you decided all people are by default either "oppressed" or "racist"? Why you decided that "black" always refers to "black people"?

I believe you yourself realise your argument about "Paul Siebert's" list is not serious: it directly refers to my username, whereas "blacklist" is even not a "blackpeoplelist". Let's try it in another way. I have no idea who you are, but, let's imagine you are a white Caucasian male. Will you feel offended if the list of spammers, evildoers, etc was widely called a "whitelist"? I am a white man, and I can assure you I wouldn't see any racist connotations in that. Then why do you think an average black person sees any racism in the word "blacklist"? Do you really assume black people are less intellectual or they have a poorer sense of humour? If I were a black person, I would feel deeply offended by the attempts to weed out such a "racism". It is that patronising which is really offending. Unfortunately, I had no opportunity to discuss that with black people, it would be interesting to know what do they think about that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess that's the fundamental disagreement; that you don't think it's fair that you should have to do anything to root out your own embedded racism - indeed, that you think you don't have any embedded racism - and I think we should, and I know I have some, and I know you do too.

All the rest - whether you're pretending not to understand that "Paul Seibert list" was an analogy; or whether your only concern is honestly that blocklist isn't a "real" English word; or whether you understand the difference between the aggregate damage of a lifetime of microaggressions compared to the harm that one of those same microaggressions might cause one of us (and whether you're familar with the phrase "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"); or whether it's amazing that a person who actually says he doesn't know any black people still has enough misplaced self confidence to just assume his gut instinct on what all black people must think is probably right - all the rest of that is unimportant compared to the fact that we're going to have a hard time communicating when you're convinced you don't have a racist bone in your body. I honestly wish I knew how to talk to people who think that. I used to be such a person. But I just don't know how. Two different planets. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me tell you one story. That story was told to me by one physicist from one US national laboratory, who was born in Europe and arrived to the US when he was 26. The story is as follows:

"Some people here are crazy, and the legislation is totally incomprehensible. One colleague of mine, a physicist from Israel was a US permanent resident, and during one trip he met some woman in a motel, and he treated her with a slice of melon. She was deeply offended and called police. They took him to a court, and a judge concluded he was guilty of harassment. As a result, he was deported".

That story sounded weird both to me and to my friend. Only after I discussed it with Nadine Strossen, she explained to me that the melon was probably a water melon, and a woman was probably a black woman (which, as I was explained, changed everything). Retrospectively, I understand that the incident looked as a purely racist harassment. However, do you sincerely believe each of us (that poor Jewish physicist, my friend who told me that story or I) are racists? I would say the opposite: we all were like time travelers, who arrived from a beautiful future where there are no racial prejudices, a water melon is just a water melon, and a black woman are just a woman with a black skin. And we must learn how to be racists to survive in a society fighting with racism. That is the most terrible thing in the US society: it will force you to become a racist, and after that it demands you to weed out your racism The idea that people from different parts of the world may have no racial stereotypes (or to have different stereotypes) is totally incopmrehencible to you.

America is a great country (probably, the best country in the world), however, its terrible egocentrism is something that I cannot accept.

And that is why a universal code of conduct would be a disaster for Wikipedia, because many good faith users will be expelled from the project just because they do not understand some nuances of local tensions between some racial groups in some US states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I realize this is somewhat stale, and no one is reading this portion of the thread anymore, but I can't let this pass into the talk page archive without response. The story you are telling is not true. No one got deported, by a judge, after a trial, for offering to "treat a woman to a melon", whether she is black or not, whether it was a watermelon or not. It didn't happen, I guarantee. I don't know if you made it up, or your friend made it up, or their friend made it up, or if it has been percolating in urban mythology for years, but I can guarantee there is no documentation for that, and I'll bet a sizeable sum of money that whatever tiny kernel of truth it might be based on, it did not happen anywhere close to the way you're describing. You can't just tell fake stories and claim that they justify a point you're making.

Everything else you're saying is pretty much bullshit too, but I'm not capable of spending further time beating my head against a brick wall. I'll settle for pointing out for posterity that your premise is built on a completely made-up story, and you either know it's made up, or should have known. Shame on you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, you literally called me a liar without providing any arguments. Do you think such behaviour is appropriate, especially for an admin? Noblesse oblige

Do you know that the All immigrants, including those with green cards, can be deported if they violate U.S. immigration laws. The most common reason for people to be placed into removal proceedings is because there is evidence that they have been convicted of a crime. Specifically, immigrants are at risk of being deported if they are convicted of either what is called a "crime of moral turpitude" or an "aggravated felony”? The list of CMTs is not well defined, so the situation described by me is not unrealistic. I can give some additional details: a lawyer of that Israel physicist advised him to agree on plea bargain instead of pleaing non-guilty, which, as he explained would have minimised negative consequences. And that would have worked well for a US citizen, but not for a permanent resident.

I named a real life person whom I spoke with about that story, and she sees it quite realistic. I also can give a name of another person, who told me that story, but that would require me to disclose my identity. I do not think this discussion deserves these efforts keeping in mind a quality of the arguments (actually the lack thereof) presented by you. To demonstrate that you are a mature person and deservedly have admin's privileges, it would be better if you apologized. You also may just remove your post, along with mine, and after that we will forget about that incident.

With regard to a "brick wall", a real brick wall is in the heads of some Americans who cannot believe majority of other nations know nothing about "negro and fried chicken", do not play baseball, and use the word "footfall" for what you call "soccer".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please pay closer attention. I did not literally call you a liar, I was careful to note that you being a liar was one of three possibilities. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not call you a liar, I said it was one of three possibilities is rhetorical gold. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Almost as golden as framing one's view of US culture around a transparently phony fourth-hand anecdote and, in the same breath, condemning Americans for their ignorance of other countries. :P MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I see absolutely no problem in being ignorant of other countries. That is especially forgivable for America, which is a great and self-sufficient in many aspects country. I see a problem with refusal to recognize that the world is much more complex, and acting in accordance with your narrow vision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert hit the nail on the head. It's not about renaming some obscure page that 99.9 percent of visitors to Wikipedia never see and the faction that do largely do not care as shown by the RM. I think it's silly but will not lose any sleep over it no matter which way it goes. What it is, is virtue signalling. It's a cop out to say hey look I'm helping while doing little to nothing of actual value. It's like saying I support diversity while hiring almost exclusively people from one group. Which hey, that's fine, you do you. But you don't get to have your cake and eat it to. Heck you want an easy example? Take a look at a recent RFC at the COVID-19 pandemic article where it looks like it's about to snow close to remove any mention of the racism associated with the pandemic from the lead. Because, even though attacks on minorities are still happening because of the pandemic, it is apparently just recentism and not important. But no, lets everyone get uppity and indignant about old tech jargon. PackMecEng (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's commendable to want to prioritize more systemic, deep rooted issues, but they're not unrelated. When we stop using a particular word, stop laughing at a particular kind of joke, change the name of a popular product, etc. it may seem trivial or annoying, especially to those scolded for just rolling with the culture they've been given, but it can have far reaching affects. There's no flip to switch when it comes to culture. The reason civil rights groups come together to campaign against certain language use isn't just because "it offends us" but because changing language changes how we think about things and how we associate concepts. The word "blacklist" isn't all that big of an issue, no, but it's a relatively easy thing to change that may help a bit. Even if that change is unmeasurable, what's the argument against it, if all the primary technical stakeholders are on board? If it addresses something that bothers some people, is distantly related to larger systemic issues, and is easy to change, that sounds like a change worth making, no? Note: a previous version of this post invoked poststructuralism and cultural studies, but I like you all too much to do that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose my frustration was not at the request itself. While I voted to oppose the change I would not be upset either way it goes. My issue comes in more at the over reaction to opposition. Which lead me to the virtue signaling comment. While fighting even slight racism on sight is a good thing, I wish people would be more consistent with it and be willing to take on the larger and more meaningful fights as quickly as they take on the small ones. But your point is well taken. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In my country there was a time when some innocent words were "blacklisted". Sure, there was no de-jure censorship after 1970, but everybody knew what to expect in case of violation of unwritten rules. Losing a good work would be a likely outcome. Self-censorship is so mighty tool in the hands of oppressors. An example of then "unword"? A "market" (in sense of market economy). Not because it was a "capitalist" word, but because it was associated with reforms of the late 60s (note there were exceptions to this rule, eg. publishing in economy journal with next to no circulation, but only few were so brave to even think about it). When I spoke to my older relatives about discussions like this one, their reply is usually along the lines of "Hey, that is like in our communist regime!". Every society has its own phantoms: be it westiges of racial oppression, or fear of losing hard gained liberty. Don´t be surprised if I hold my phantoms above yours. Pavlor (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I hope everyone notices the intensity, persistence, and quantity words written by the opposition that is totally disproportionate to what should be a minor, uncontroversial change. Why are people so vested in the status quo? Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope everyone notices how this discussion was started out with a highly prejudicial and well poisoned proposition, and how absolutely oblivious the proponents appear to be as to that being the large reason people are pushing back against it. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Good question. Have you proposed just to replace "blacklist" with "stoplist" because there is some category of people in the US who may feel offended by usage of the words "black...", that would cause no objection from my side: such a change would not harm to anybody, so if some people will feel better, why cannot we do that? However, if that minor change (which is really minor) is just a start of the campaign of "rooting out some of our own embedded racism that tends to insult editors who might be members of historically oppressed groups", that is really frightening. As I already explained, your proposal contains several questioinable assumptions:

• that we all have our own embedded racism (the very idea to divide the humankind on racists and "previously oppressed groups" is highly questionable);
• that the process of rooting out of "our" racism has just started (in reality, it started decades ago, and since then the humankind made an enormous progress);
• that we know what exactly tends to insult members of historically oppressed groups (do you believe you are in position to speak on behalf of "historically oppressed groups" in general?);
• that we have a clear understanding of who exactly should be considered as "historically oppressed groups" (in reality, to make a global definition of "historically oppressed groups", it is necessary at least to know history, but history is traditionally a neglected science in the US society, where it is being taught as a set of poorly connected fables).

Regarding that, I have two general comments. First, the "theoretical foundation" of Stalinist repressions was Stalin's concept of "permanent exacerbation of class struggle during the movement of a Socialist society to Communism". Keeping in mind that Communism was seen as a classless society where no class struggle would be possible, it was natural to expect that the class struggle was supposed to reach some maximum at some point, and then to start declining until it reaches a complete zero. Therefore, Stalin's concept was a total bullshit, but it cost millions of lives of "enemies of people". I am not going to draw a direct analogy between Stalinism and modern trends in the Western society, but when I look at the rhetorics of modern liberals I cannot see any formal milestone in a foreseeable future that would allow us to say: "Ok, now the battle for racial equality has been essentially won. It is a time to relax a little bit". In contrast, I anticipate that after "blacklists" is blacklisted, the fighters for racial equality will turn their attention to "greyzones", "Dark Ages" etc, and I see no end to this "permanently exacerbating struggle against racism".

The second comment is an adaptation of one Hodja Nasreddin's story (that type stories are very popular in some cultures, if you don't know them, here is an original version). The new version is as follows:

"One day Emir, who was a very progressive and tolerant ruler, called Nasreddin Hodja and asked him, "“Can you initiate my beloved ass into liberal values and multiculturalism, so that he knows as much as I do, and can you teach him to talk?" Hodja answered, "I know your ass, I have tested his capabilities and now I am convinced that this remarkable ass is not behind your ministers in intelligence. I will initiate him to liberal values and multiculturalism and in twenty days he will be capable of speaking like the ancient wise man Cicero." Emir ordered to give Hodja five thousand golden tangas from the treasury and said, “Take this ass and teach him, but, by Allas, if he doesn't know liberalism and multiculturalism in twenty days and can't explain them to me, I will decapitate you!” (Sic!).

In 20 days, Hoja brought the ass back to Emir. "Have you done what I requested" - Emir asked. Hodja replied humbly: "Yes, my lord, you may ask your ass and see it by yourself". Emir started to talk with the ass, but the ass didn't say a word. "You are trying to fool me! The ass definitely cannot talk" - Emir exclaimed. "I respectfully disagree, my lord" - Hodja replied humbly. "Your wise ass learned all nuances of liberalism and multiculturalism, and he told me he refuses to say anything that may potentially insult at least one member of at least one formerly oppressed group. Maybe, that a reason he is silent.".

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What's necessary to make this happen?[edit]

Looking at the issue from an editor point-of-view, rather than Foundation POV[edit]

The article on blacklisting does't mention "race" or "racism", not even once. It does talk about blacklisting communists, what are y'all saying here, that communists are all black? It talks about the Hollywood blacklist; are you saying that Hollywood is racist? There is no mention of controversy in the main article; only in the sub-article Blacklist (computing) do we find a controversy over use of the term section, and the controversies there all seem recent, dating only from 2018. Looking at the redirects to blacklisting, I don't see any obvious common synonyms. Block list is still a red link. Anyone active at WP:Requested moves knows that Wikipedia doesn't lead in such matters. A sports arena will change its name, usually after selling naming rights to a private corporation for promotional purposes, and many editors will be reluctant to move the page off the common, generic name before seeing strong evidence that reliable sources have begun to refer to the arena by its new commercial name. This is a matter where the Foundation, which wears their political agendas on their sleeves, is constantly running in front of the more conservative editors.

What about (please don't call "whataboutism" on me) "gaslighting"? Isn't that term disparaging to the fossil fuel industry? Shouldn't we stop using it so as to stop being insensitive towards the people responsible for keeping us warm this winter? wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The fossil fuel industry wasn't enslaved for centuries, whereas black people were. That's the difference there. And, yeah, the move away from "blacklist" and "whitelist" is recent. The reason for that is before recently, we had Jim Crow in the US, and before that, slavery. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so the fact that our article on blacklisting doesn't mention race is evidence of Wikipedia's poor average article quality, not evidence that blacklist has no racial connotations. It's kind of impossible to ignore that "blacklist" and "whitelist" use "black" to mean "bad" and "white" to mean "good", and the reason that's a problem is because white people used to enslave black people. It really all comes back to that. That's why we shouldn't use colors as metaphors for good and bad: because we used to enslave people based on the color of their skin. And because we still discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. Cops don't shoot fossil fuel workers at a higher rate than other workers, for example. If the WMF is ahead of more conservative editors on this, so am I, and I think that's OK. Our internal culture does not need to match the lowest common denominator, and we certainly don't need to carry on tradition. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, what I'm hearing from the last part of your post is that you're comfortable discarding our consensus-based system in this instance because you've decided that your position is the one with the moral high ground. This is a common theme that I've observed both here and at the RM in question. The RM has been even worse, and it's because those who support the move believe speak as though they have the monopoly on truth, which leaves them free to simply browbeat those who disagree with them. Those of us who oppose the move have been lectured and dismissed, with some going so far as to tell us to 'shut up'. You're certainly entitled to your view that the terms in question are offensive/subpar/inappropriate, but that doesn't make it okay to steamroll the community. I believe the arguments that the terms are offensive are specious at best, and we don't need to bow to specious arguments. However, I'm willing to be persuaded that I'm wrong through reasonable, rational conversation. The problem is that reasonable, rational conversation is an unrealistic goal when one side of the dispute would rather force their viewpoint through with or without consensus. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Lep I honestly have no idea what RM you're referring to? My comments are about "blacklist" and "whitelist" in general, and mostly in response to wbm's comment (wherein I disagree with the analogy to fossil fuel industry that they draw). While I support the change, I don't support anyone lecturing or dismissing anyone else. Although, I would say that from where I'm sitting, when folks draw obviously-false analogies for rhetorical affect (like "blacklist" and "gaslight"), that has the same off-putting effect as lecturing or dismissiveness. I think where you and I would agree is that neither side of this debate should take the position that their side is the only side that is rational or just. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, see Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist § Requested move 10 February 2021. You might just skip to the bottom of that to see where I think this is going. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks wbm. I'm gonna go drive my steamroller over there. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Heh. I probably shouldn't be canvassing, but while you're at it Levivich you might want to help break the 2–2 tie here. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right about the canvassing concern. I'd better !vote with one of my socks. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to not be speaking on behalf of editors, but on behalf of editors with a POV, which you call "conservative". So, perhaps come out of your POV and imagine you are not whatever you are referring to as "conservative" but are instead a "neutral" editor. Would anything happen to the act of editing, itself, if it's called a "blocklist", instead of a "blacklist"? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, actually, some white people used to enslave some black people, and that changes everything. I looked Blacklist's sister articles in other Wikipedias, and I found that an overwhelming majority of them use the the word "black". These articles include Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, German, etc. I am pretty sure many nations, including Ukrainians or Russians, were slaves themselves until 1860s, so in their languages that has no racial connotations. I took Russian as an example of a language that both has a big corpus and has no linkage to racism, and it seems "blacklist" was introduced in 1860 and became popular during Stalin's purges. Clearly, "blacklist" never had any racial connotations in Russian, especially keeping in mind that Pushkin, who plays the same role for Russian literature as Shakespeare, Dickens and Byron taken together, had African ancestry and proudly declared that. It seems association of "black" with bad is common for many nations and languages, including those that have no relation to black slave trade/black slavery.

Furthermore, it seems a causal linkage is broken here. I looked at the usage of the words "blacklist, black person, nigger, blackmail, black people", and it is easy to see that "black person/man" is a neologism, which replaced the word "nigger/negro". The word "blacklist" is even older than the word "nigger" (first usage in mid 1600s). Therefore, it is quite clear that the word "blacklist" never had relation to black people originally. The problem is, maybe, in the fact that many (but not all) nations associate the black colour with death and various bad things. If that is the case, replacement of certain words will not help, because it would require a global change of mentality (just imagine a film where Gandalf is black: do you sincerely believe it will be understood correctly? .

As I already told, I see no problem in changing some terms if that has no negative consequences and makes a life of some people better. However, we have to check is that is the case. First, are we really sure "blacklist" etc really annoy an average black person? Frankly, I am not sure, but if somebody knows a good sociological study of that issue, it would interesting to read it. However, if majority of black people see no problem with "blacklist", it makes no sense to waste our time. Remember, that problem could be important during Malcolm X's times, but the situation significantly changed since then: Jim Craw's laws are cancelled, there is no racial segregation (at least de jure), affirmative action policy is widespread. Another important sign is that I know some cases when non-black people pretended to be black to get some benefits (which would be unbelievable in Malcolm X's times). Therefore, maybe it makes sense to check if the "blacklist" issue really deserves our attention, or that is just "virtue signalling"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

From a pragmatist POV - I think perhaps it has more to do with the process of redaction - blacking something out on paper - readacted - common usage in government. That's how I see it - all it has ever meant. Do you think governments will change their method of redaction to red, and stop using white paper? Think about a list created in the McCarthy era - a full list of names on white paper, and the people who were not under investigation were redacted, the others remained visible - that's a black list - drive them out; see the etymology of redacted. Now look at any government document that was proofed prior to public distribution. There are statements that are blacked-out, redacted, because of national security interests. Bottomline, I don't care what we do relative to changing the name of a list - I am always happy to know that I've made someone feel better or made them smile - it makes my life better. When we start creating problems that don't exist and that's attributable to white guilt, that's a sign of trouble and quite frankly, why we have psychiatrists. Don't feel guilty, feel sad, a bit angry, but be inspired to fix it so that it never happens again, but don't cut-off your nose to spite your face, or sweep facts under the carpet or censor all the wrongs that were committed throughout human history. Conquerors burned books, censored language, and eliminated dissidants. This witch hunt has to stop. I understand where Jimmy and the WMF are coming from - zero tolerance. But beware - for some people zero is negative 10. It leads to injustices and the hounding of innocent people as we've seen right here on Jimbo's page. Editors who write prose, or who edit encyclopedias are wordsmiths so to speak, or at least have some command of the language, which is English in our case. We use words in context to mean certain things, to engage our readers. Stop taking away our freedom to express what needs to be expressed by injecting guilt for something we didn't do, or implying that certain words might be misconstrued as racism - based on what, a POV - when the words aren't even close to a racist agenda? I can assure you, it doesn't take much to find real racists - they quickly make themselves known - some even project their racism onto others. We don't have to dig so deep that we are censoring and reducing our pool of resources, and the English language itself.

Some of the people who haven't lived outside the US or UK may not be considering how this plays out globally. What does science tell us, re: mitochondrial mother? My extended family on this island do not consider themselves black and will correct you very quickly. When they go to the US, they resent being called African Americans because they are not from Africa - they were born either here on Bonaire, in Aruba or South America. They do not relate to slavery, even though the island has a memorial with the original slave huts on one end of the island. Most relate to slave traders (some of whom were black) as people who kidnapped all colors of people and sold them into slavery, and that included children and adults of South American, African, and Asian ancestry, with some Europeans mixed in. Know the history, teach it - that's why we are here helping to build this encyclopedia. Our readers need to know what happened, and we need to be able to write about it so history doesn't repeat itself, and when doing so, we should not be subjected to ignorant name calling and accusations. Isn't it rather shallow for us to focus only on the US & UK when we are a global encyclopedia? Slavery was a horrible, horrible era in our history - I was not part of that history and I look back on it with horror and pain in my heart - it brings me to tears - but it also inspires me to keep working to solve the problems, not create them. What we're not focusing enough of our energy on is the fact that there are still women of all colors who live as slaves today. There are still areas in the world where genocide continues. That's where we, as a global encyclopedia, should be focusing a significant portion of our efforts, rather than worrying about how we should title a redacted or cancelled list of names. Atsme 💬 📧 14:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent post! Did you know ... that those slaves were mining salt from evaporated seawater on the Bonaire salt flats. Fossil-fuel powered machines do all the heavy lifting for that work now. I bet business is booming there now, with all the road salt being applied up north this winter! wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

See salt works – wbm1058 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Wbm1058. Being pressed for time because of my work on WP, I didn't get an opportunity to thoroughly research the etymology, or some of the more recent academic opinions relative to the origins of blacklist & whitelist. In my efforts to achieve accuracy, I found the following article in the Journal of the Medical Library Assoc. which shed more light on this topic - and there are others written by academics. I do believe it is something we should take into serious consideration, and will support whatever decision is made. There's a quote in that article by a woman I've admired for a long time: The plague of racism is insidious, entering into our minds as smoothly and quietly and invisibly as floating airborne microbes enter into our bodies to find lifelong purchase in our bloodstreams. ~ Maya Angelou It is good to keep these things in mind, and as I said above, I'm ok with making the change. It was the approach to this discussion that threw so many of us off-balance, and that is what concerns me. I am a team player - always have been - but I don't function well when there's a target on my back by those who have demonstrated ill-will towards me. I've slept on it, thought about this discussion, reread it, thought a bit more for the better part of this morning. I can say in clear conscience that I have moved past it, and that's where I prefer to keep it; i.e., in the past. Happy editing!! Atsme 💬 📧 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A near-direct comparable consideration is the Master/slave (technology) concern. Technology initially used the slavery-related terms because they were "accurate" descriptors - one device managed other devices, which had no decision-making factors in that, they were slaves to the master. However in that situation, there was clearly a larger movement in society that led tech groups to push away from that terminology due to the implications to not only the problems with slaves in the US but other parts of the world where slavery is still used, and as such, technology moved on. Similar phases that use "master" like "master bedroom" can be found with similar origins tied to slavery and thus are reasonably being pushed out of mainstream use.

As being pointed out above, "blacklist"/"whitelist" do not have similar origins tied to race or similar mistreatment of minority groups, but there's a poor assumption made that the "black" of "blacklist" is due to a racial factor (there has never been any). As such , there hasn't been a move at a large scale to push away from this language, at least in the computing area (where WP should be looking, since that's how we implement lists like these), because they simply aren't racially charged terms at all, only perceived incorrectly as such. --Masem (t) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

US real estate industry already stopped calling it "master" bedroom. [5] I support that change, too. And none of this is about etymology. It's about modern-day implications. One can never "prove" to anyone else that their perceptions are wrong by giving them a history lesson. By doing that one only proves that one is missing the point. We need not look anywhere else to determine whether to change our blacklist to a deny list. We're not talking about a change to an article here. This is purely an internal Wikipedia change. We can decide to do it even if no one else is doing it. (Of course in reality we would not be the first or only to make this change.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That article also says that John Legend argued that the "real problem" with real estate has nothing to do with semantics. Instead, he said brokers should work to end housing discrimination in the United States by showing all Black people fair and equal treatment throughout the buying and selling process. I.e., stop redlining. Just because it isn't called blacklining doesn't make it OK. Primary bedroom is still a red link, and what does that imply, that your children are "secondary"? wbm1058 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

My point is that there was a clear drive to deprecate the "Master/slave" terminology in computer circles, and as such it has happened, while other uses of "master" deriving from the slavery implication are also under similar review. If WP used those terms in any of its behind-the-scenes policies, we'd have full reason to make the change too. But in the "blacklist/whitelist" area, there is not a similar push that I can see (but I may be missing it). Computer people seem to recognize that "black" here is not tied to the racial implications at all from the word's origins. If there was a clear sign that computer people were looking to move away from "blacklist/whitelist" to other terms, then I'd fully agree we should follow, but I'm just not seeing that, and WP should not be leading this type of change if that's not out there; we're not meant to be this proactive. --Masem (t) 17:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this a clear enough sign, that Twitter, Google, and Microsoft are making the changes? "Master/slave" is discussed in that article as well as "blacklist/whitelist". 2605:8D80:623:7890:93E2:F068:8474:5B72 (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's one person/company, and while it covers master/slave, that had been happening before BLM last year. Perhaps there is more post-BLM with "blacklist"/"whitelist" but its hard to come across immediate hits for that compared to the master/slave transition. --Masem (t) 18:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It's an article about one company, Twitter. Other tech companies are doing the same thing. Whether it happens before or after recent BLM protests wasn't your objection; you'd said that you wanted a clear sign that computer people are making these changes. Articles saying that major tech companies are making these changes (either in isolation or as part of a larger change) would seem to be that clear sign. 2605:8D80:623:7890:93E2:F068:8474:5B72 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Then its a fair argument to have here if that has taken off like that. I just haven't seen mas muhc compared ot master/slave. --Masem (t) 19:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

WP should follow and not lead when it comes to article content. But WP should be a leader when it comes to being citizens of planet Earth, because WP has become an important human institution. We shouldn't lag behind for-profit corporations like Google and Microsoft when it comes to good corporate citizenship. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Given WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and how many complaints when WP engages in any type of politicking, we should not actually be leaders in this area, but should only when follow when there's reasonable impedus and change in society to do so - both in mainspace and behind the scenes, unless the WMF says this should be a priority. We want to avoid a situation where a problem that doesn't exist outside Wikipedia is seen as a problem inside Wikipedia and we're reacting to a small minority of editors that push this, and that lead to a lot of potential abuse. But as the IP above as shown, there is some reasonable backing to push for a change to "blacklist/whitelist" that would make sense for WP to thus explore this. --Masem (t) 20:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

To add, I consider two recent large scale discussions in similar areas as relevant: how we have chosen to handle the naming of transgender individuals in their prior works based on how we know current societal norms refer to them (the RFC concluding to use their post-transition name in older articles), and the rejection of avoiding "committed suicide" where appropriate despite some concern from mental health experts about its connotation. The former case, there is clearly a lead out there we could follow, the latter, there isn't the lead that we should be following. --Masem (t) 20:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

For your enjoyment I present this Ngram. "Black list" (two words) has been fairly constant over time. Something happened around 1880 to make the compound "blacklist" take off – my guess is it has something to do with all the socialist rabble-rousers who thought that working people should get a more fair slice of the capitalist's pie. Whatever efforts Google and Co. have made to right great wrongs has yet to show up in the Ngram, but I note that the two-word "block list" has the edge over the compound. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I could construct a cogent argument that what the CoC should do is to protect members of the community from implicit racism. And I could construct an equally cogent argument that what it should do is to protect members of the community from being implicitly accused of racism. And I can predict that both "sides" in the discussion here will want the WMF to use the CoC to protect them and to punish the other "side". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I totally see your point. I view it less about protection via "code of conduct" and more about actually listening to each other (which, of course, belongs to conduct but is hard to codify.) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, listening to one another with a reasonable^[vague] amount of respect is really the key, and more so than anything that can readily be codified. But the reality is that, sooner or later, people will try to weaponize whatever has been codified. And that can, as here, lead to "We need to be more attuned to the feelings of disadvantaged members of the community." "Stop calling me racist." "We need to be more attuned to the feelings of disadvantaged members of the community." "Stop calling me racist." Rinse and repeat. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That would (or will) be an unfortunate intensification indeed. I hope we're not there yet. (Also, both 'sides' appear to feel being labeled, whether as racists or as social justice warriors, whether as ignorant or as condescending, etc. I agree that labelling editors is no way forward) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)23:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Mobile app and mobile web notification issues[edit]

Could you take a look at this and perhaps escalate these issues internally? IP editors on mobile web and all editors on the iOS app do not receive notifications at all, including talk page messages or see the block message. Some editors have been blocked for WP:Communication is required when the issue is actually the (official) app they're using. I think it's quite urgent to fix; essential that editors can communicate easily, or at all, with mobile editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, especially since the advent of WP:PB, I've felt compelled to add/pipe a link to a respective article (or user) talk page in the block log of many users, because those simply are not linked anywhere in some mobile devices. El_C 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, let's talk about equality.[edit]

1. Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses:Sensitive due to public relations implications
   If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee. These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations and blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications that must be managed by the Foundation's press relations team.
2. Wikipedia:Equality:Treatment of an editor must be based on the behavior of the editor, without any regard to the editor's status. On the English Wikipedia project, all users, from the IP user to admins and others with advanced tools are afforded the benefit and respect of our fundamental policies of governance. All users should be accountable to these policies and guidelines, and no users should ever be exempt from them. Policies apply equally to registered or non-registered users, regular or occasional editors, administrators and bureaucrats regardless of tenure, and regardless of 'rank'. Should a situation ever arise where the question comes up: "Is this user exempt from the community-established and accepted policy in question?" the answer will be simply "No."

What is your take on such conflicting information? Thanks. Life is short so let us live it to the fullest! (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly there is no conflict. The top one isn't a get out of jail free card. It just says the those ip's must be dealt with by a specific department and not that they are exempt from sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Two separate issues. The first one just stops admins from issuing blocks and defers it to the foundation. AntoineHound (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent any admin from blocking those ranges if appropriate. It just says you should give a heads up to the comms team if you do, as there may well be press interest that they have to deal with. the wub "?!" 11:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to the question that was asked (perhaps), but that's a very narrow list of "major governmental organizations", it's not a policy page and I don't recall seeing any other Wikimedia projects with a similar statement. Are we sure it is actually a requirement from the WMF and not just a request?QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is just common sense. If one of these ip's is misbehaving, block them exactly as usual, but then immediately notify the WMF because such blocks often result in press attention (most of which is usually confused about what is going on). I don't know if this is a requirement from the WMF (unlikely) or something put into place wisely by the community (very likely).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia redesign[edit]

Just reading this in PC Mag on the planned redesign and a demo at Hathor. Makes sense for smaller devices but on a widescreen PC the white background is excessive. If we allowed for some colour customization, like a black/navy background at the sides or white on dark etc like they have on twitter that would be useful. I do find the current default design rather bland but I know a lot of editors prefer that than something bolder. I always liked the colours and design of Encyclopedia Iranica. Some dark shading around the edges make the articles stand out more I think.† Encyclopædius 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

7:45 That kid came up with some designs. The black and grey is too dark but he's on the right track I think.† Encyclopædius 20:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I Wikipedia afraid or=f Gender honest books ??...Its been four books and 5 years[edit]

I would like to know why you do not have information on John R. Gregg, Scholar and Professor. I know materials requesting a page on him have been submitted several times. He has been recommended by the Futurist Ray Kurzweil several times JOHN RANDALL GREGG WAS BORN IN 1945 IN CAMP BLANDING FLORIDA .HE WAS EDUCATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND RECEIVED ADVANCED DEGREES AT FLORID ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY IN HISTORY AND ANTHROPOLOGY

HE IS BEST KNOW FOR WRITING THE VAST EPIC: SEX, THE ILLUSTRATED HISTORY THROUGH TIME, RELIGION AND CULTURE. CONSISTING OF THREE VOLUMES . WITH MODERN HONESTY IT EXAMINES HUMAN SEXUALITY THROUGH ALL AVAILABLE CULTURES FROM PREHISTORY AND THE ANCIENT WORLD MOVING INTO THE MODERN ERA IN ALL CULTURES. THE VOLUMES EXAMINE CLOSELY, AND CONTROVERSIALLY THE ROLES OF RELIGION IN ITS CONTROL OF SEX AND THE EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN AND BOYS THROUGHOUT MOST CULTURES. THIS WORK HAS BEEN HAILED BY THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY AS THE FIRST GENDER HONEST HISTORY OF SEX.

He is the author of 4 modern volumes which have caused great controversy because of their direct honesty and revolutionary gender approach 

1. Sex, The Illustrated History: Through Time, Religion, and Culture, Volume I, Sex in the Ancient World, Early Europe Through the Renaissance and Islam. 339 pages

2. Sex, The illustrated History :Through Time, Religion, and Culture, Volume II Sex in Asia, Australia, Africa, The South Pacific and The Indigenous Americas. 274 pages 3. Sex, The Illustrated History: Through Time. Religion,. And Culture, Volume IIL Sex in The Modern World: 17th to The 21st Century, Europe and Colonial North and South America. (World Slavery, Trafficking, Church Abuse, LGBTQ History). 267 pages

4. Sex The World History; Through Time, Religion and Culture. 471 pages.

Are the works to controversial for Wikipedia, because they give ample evidence that Most human cultures have been bisexual ?Inline image Inline image

Inline image

Inline image — Preceding unsigned comment added by John R. Gregg (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the works are not too controversial for Wikipedia. The answers you were given at the help desk here and here, about two months ago, still are valid. So are the answers you received here yesterday. This draft needs a lot of work before submitting. And please stop posting in capital letters. It makes you look like someone who's screaming. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)