User talk:Jimbo Wales

Attest

In a previous section you wrote "I'm sure there will be sources to attest to that if true."[1] See How the U.S. Could Double Vaccination Pace With Existing Supply, New York Times, Jan 22, "President Biden’s promise to administer 100 million vaccines by his 100th day in office is no longer a lofty goal; it is attainable at the current pace at which shots are going into arms."

Although the above article says one thing, some other reliable sources give a different impression. Regardless of what the news media says, I think the bottom line when it comes to administering doses is the data, and that can be found in the source that I mentioned in that previous talk section [2]. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have seen today a headline that the goal may be raised to 1.5 million per day. [3].--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The number of doses administered per day can be viewed at [4]. Above the plot there are several choices. Under "count", deselect "per 100 people". Under "interval", select "new per day". The numbers for a data point can be seen by hovering the cursor over it. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Another choice under "interval" is "7-day rolling average", which takes the average daily number of doses for the previous 7 days and thus smooths the data. The 7 day rolling average has been over 1 million doses per day every day since Jan 23 (which uses data since Jan 17). Bob K31416 (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday Feb 10, the 7-day rolling average surpassed 1.5 million doses administered per day. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Appeal request

Dear Mr. Wales, would you please advise on the following situation:

WP:UNBAN states three times that in case of “… serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure”, a community imposed ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Unfortunately, the reply to my appeal request made clear that Arbcom is/was unaware of this provision. The reply suggested that I familiarize myself with the various possiblities of appealing a block, even though I’m not blocked but topic banned. This left me with the impression that my request was not read carefully. [5] As a consequence the Committee referred me back to the community.

However, the principle behind the provision to request a neutral review of the procedure, if I understand it correctly, is to establish whether some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, and the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad.[6] The details listed below show that no fair discussion took place and that the sanction is excessive.

Details of the topic ban :

1. Admin Rosguill, who decided to ban me [7], tells me that they deliberately ignored my rebuttals to the allegations filed against me at ANI.[8]
2. The ban decision was based mainly on a reading error by Rosguill. I supposedly deflected a request to supply sources, but I did actually answer that request in detail.[9] To stress the extent of the miscommunication: I had already explained this in my rebuttals, the ones Rosguill ignored, see:[10].
3. When their mistake came to light, Rosguill did not revert their ban decision but quickly came up with another reason to uphold it.[11] However, this new reason is not valid either. Rosguill argues about the right interpretation of a source. Aside from the fact that they're not an expert on the subject, a difference of opinions about subject matter content is not evidence of serious disruptive behavior.
4. Additional reasons which Rosguill provided to justify the ban turned out to be an old issue and two innocent remarks. See the discussion: [12].

While I've been trying to adapt after my block in December, it might be helpful if editors and admins who scrutinize my behavior ask me questions and consider my explanations. As the reading error and content dispute demonstrates, the subject matter and the Talk page discussions are more complex than people realize. My aim, still, is to improve the content of Wikipedia articles in the areas I'm knowledgeable about. NB: I have sent this information also in an email. Saflieni (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As I understand Jimbos stance he does not interfere with Admin decisions, he does not act as a final right of appeal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Slatersteven. The policy pages on Banning policy ("Any arbitration decision may be appealed to Jimbo Wales.") and: Appeal of decisions suggest differently. On a sidenote: This Saturday I watched Mr. Wales speaking to the BBC about the difference between Wikipedia and other internet sources where the accuracy of information is concerned. I thought he might want to check if that assumption still holds true, taking the subject behind this case as an example.Saflieni (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ok then. May I suggest that Wikipedia removes all apparently redundant information from the policy pages? It creates a false sense of protection against the hostile actions of others. I've even been warned recently to stop complaining about behaviors which are listed as forms of Wiki-bullying but are selectively condoned by admins during Talk page-, ANI-, and Arbcom discussions. I'm not sure what happened to the principles of respect for thoughtful intellectual discourse that Wikipedia represents. I can't say that I'm seeing much evidence of those principles.Saflieni (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that ultimately the Foundation, or Jimbo personally, can and will intervene should it need to. For example, imagine a scenario where a cadre of admins decided to progress the deliberate introduction of bias in violation of either the Use or founding principles and took to blocking editors who tried to fix their desired bias. Theoretically, you can imagine they would act in response to an "appeal" from one of those blocked editors. However, this is just a theoretical example - in practice I can't see it happening. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, if only you had been warned that your behavior was problematic, so that you could adjust course -- too bad that never happened! --JBL (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Starting a post with a condescending "Gosh" and adding random diffs from a lengthy discussion showing arguments not used for my ban is not only tendentious and off-topic, it also illustrates my point very well: People jumping to conclusions before getting all the facts, then doggedly sticking to their initial impressions when they're confronted with counterevidence. User JBL said during the ANI discussion: I sometimes browse ANI for amusement, and sometimes comment if I feel there is a simple, clear point to be made. Likewise, user Rosguill said: I was looking for ANI cases that needed additional input from an uninvolved admin. They're passers-by who don't fully comprehend what is being discussed or in which context remarks should be understood, but they are quick to judge anyway. There were three or four others with similar attitudes in this case, showing their confusion by posting outlandish responses to simple factual explanations, who hound me all over Wikipedia. They're so convinced of their own infallibility that none of them realizes the detrimental effect of their activities to the quality of Wikipedia articles.Saflieni (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Now do yourself! --JBL (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni, FWIW I have the impression that you are making a good case. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me unfair to have Rosguill misrepresented here. Saflieni, not Rosguill, misread the talk-page discussion concerning "What RS say is the topic of [a nonfiction book]." Although Saflieni protests here that he is improperly banned over just a few edits, Rosguill clearly explained, I also reviewed the discussion at that talk page in its entirety, and affirm the assessment of other editors that Saflieni has improperly and repeatedly construed disagreements over content as either incompetence or conspiracy on the part of other editors. (emphasis mine.) Saflieni's topic ban for disruptive editing was the result of a long ANI discussion, where a wide range of problem edits and edit summaries were cited. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Another deceptive red herring accompanied by the usual bad faith accusations. Such accusations require accurate information otherwise they're just personal attacks. Case in point: the Talk page discussion linked by HouseOfChange includes my post which was overlooked by Rosguill. It also includes HouseOfChange's reply to that post which shows that they know it's there and that they're fully aware of the fact that Rosguill overlooked it. HoC's other point is equally misleading. The diff they produce shows that Rosguill changed their mind - from wanting to close the ANI without sanctions to an indefinite topic ban - because of their mistake. Rosguill's other assumptions are testimony to their lack of understanding but unfortunately I can't address that in more detail because the topic ban prohibits it. Saflieni (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Roseguill tried to courteously respond in good faith, point by point to your many points until it became too time consuming. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. To get an idea of how these discussions work, just take a look at the time stamp of the banning decision. Rosguill decided on the ban at 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC). I posted the counterevidence at 23:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC). Then at 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC), Rosguill quickly came up with the new reason for "pulling the trigger" - that in their opinion I had deliberately misrepresented a source (remember that Rosguill is not familiar with the subject matter). By posting that new reason they acknowledged that their initial justification for the ban was an error. In their "courteous" Talk page responses, Rosguill stuck to the new story, which was actually a new mistake, and presented it as an example of my alleged "failing to cooperate appropriately". So, with all due respect, I don't believe that falsely accusing someone of misconduct to cover up their own mistakes is a great example of responding in good faith. Saflieni (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a recantation by Rosguill in the statement being misrepresented above: Saflieni, Your insistence that the diff you shared in your response to me[13] was an adequate example of evidence in response HoC's question[14] is the reason that I decided to pull the trigger on this. The article cited in the diff does not say that IPOB is a book about double genocide (the claim HoC was asking you to support), but rather alleges that the book has repopularized claims that a double genocide occurred in Rwanda. On its own, this could be taken as a forgivable mistake. Coming after 2 ANI threads and thousands of words of discussion, and coupled with insults at HoC, it crosses the line. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[15] (two links to diffs cited by me, but I can't figure out how to link to the Rosguill diff itself in the archived ANI.) HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni, If your topic ban was lifted, how would you and HouseOfChange be able to work together on the article In Praise of Blood? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't give a detailed answer to that question without violating the topic ban. However, in general I can say that it would take a neutral referee who's able to judge the quality of our argumentation and sources rather than simply counting votes.Saflieni (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What would you do if the referee ruled against you? Bob K31416 (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. As long as the spirit of Wikipedia policies is respected and the result is factually accurate, it's not that difficult to convince me.Saflieni (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What would you do if you thought that the referee's ruling didn't respect the spirit of Wikipedia policies or if you thought that the result of the referee's ruling was not factually accurate? Bob K31416 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess anything is possible. What would you suggest if such an unfortunate situation occurred, Bob K31416? Btw, have you considered that my contributions might not be the biggest challenge in the discussion? Saflieni (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, If you agreed to having a referee and the referee ruled against you, what would you do? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Here is a recent debate where consensus was against my strongly-held opinion. I respected that consensus was against me. I tried to make sure the wording of the disputed material reflected RS and NPOV. The wording I introduced has been essentially stable since December 9, because I tried to understand and reflect the talk page consensus. Admins are a bit like referees; they deserve respect IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but could you respond directly to my previous question? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Your question is wWhat would you do if you thought that the referee's ruling was wrong? I would try first to understand why the referee's ruling was what it was, trying to think of it as an opportunity to learn something I hadn't known. If I was still not convinced, I would think about the dollar auction and consider if it was worth my time to dispute. If it was, I would look for related RS and respectfully cite them, to the referee or to something like RfC or DRN. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a referee wouldn't work because neither side would accept the referee's ruling if they thought it went against them.

I think there are two positive behaviors to be considered in conflicts like these. One is standing up for what you believe. The other is cooperation. They can be in conflict. In Wikipedia discussions they need to be balanced against one another. If that doesn't happen, then administrators take action to get an article back on track. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Bob K31416, how did my "no problem" got translated into: "neither side would accept the referee's ruling if they thought it went against them"?[16] I'm the one who suggested a referee. Saflieni (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: But wasn't Rosguill acting as a "neutral referee" when she told you that a quote saying "this book makes a case for xx" is not equivalent to saying "xx is the main topic of this book." Instead, you accused her of having ignored or misread your quote, of being ignorant of xx, and of doubling down on her error -- providing as proof an example of another author saying "this book makes a case for xx." In topic-ban respecting terms, picture a book whose subtitle is "a slice of raisin bread", and I give you six examples of RS that say "this is a book about a slice of raisin bread" and say, "can you show some RS examples who agree with you that this is a book about raisins"? So you reply with a few insults, including that two of my six RS examples are not raisin-experts, and then give one example of a raisin-expert saying "This book makes a case for a fringe theory about raisins!" You did not treat Rosguill's verdict with respect. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm asking HouseOfChange to stop trying to lure me into a content discussion, knowing that it would violate my topic ban. I've already flagged their argument as a red herring. The current topic is whether Rosguill's reasons for banning me are valid. A difference of opinions about content isn't, regardless of whose interpretation is the correct one. Saflieni (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni It will be great if you stop psychoanalyzing other people aka if you start just WP:AGF. I am not trying to play any tricks on you. I am just explaining my own point of view, which is that Rosguill did not ban you over a content dispute, she banned you for your bad behavior in many different disputes, while pointing particularly to your rude and unhelpful behavior in our content dispute regarding the book's main topic. Rosguill never said, as you have repeatedly claimed, that she deliberately ignored your rebuttals at ANI. She said Rebuttals were unnecessary, because her decision was based on the article talk page and on the ArbCom case, rather than on your or my advocacy for our own interpretations of those discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Now you're just gaslighting, trying to disorient the readers of this Talk page. One more time:

a) This was Rosguill's explanation, which is just an opinion that's different from mine: The article cited in the diff does not say that IPOB is a book about double genocide (the claim HoC was asking you to support), but rather alleges that the book has repopularized claims that a double genocide occurred in Rwanda. Rosguill didn't respond to the quote from that article which I used to support my interpretation.[17]

b) When Rosguill said: "Rebuttals were unnecessary", it was in response to my question: Please explain why my rebuttals were not taken into consideration? See point two of the discussion you refer to.[18] You're taking Rosguill's response out of context to pretend it means something else.

c) The suggestion that Rosguill based their decision on Talk page incidents and the Arbcom case was discussed under point three of that same discussion.[19]

d) Rosguill's original reason for the topic ban was: Saflieni has continued to deflect appropriate requests for sources. That statement was an error, as I've explained with evidence. I'm not going to repeat this again.Saflieni (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: I disagree, but I don't want to add to this pointless wall of text. I invite curious readers to consult the "what do RS say is the book's main topic?" talk-page discussion for themselves. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you both are very articulate and familiar with the topic so it's a shame that you can't work together. When there is a difference of opinion as to what should be put in the article, one could put in the main text one side and the other side might be put in as a footnote with appropriate qualifying remarks. In the current situation, Saflieni is topic banned so HouseOfChange might consider doing that with regard to double genocide. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why am I still topic banned, Bob K31416? That's the question. HouseOfChange is not familiar with the topic, btw. They're just very good at playing the Wikipedia game. Not sure how this benefits the encyclopedia, though. Saflieni (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

[20] Bob K31416 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Meaning?Saflieni (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the topic ban was correct. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on ... what exactly? I don't understand how people read these debates. I present a very simple, easy to verify case. Then HoC comes around to derail the discussion, claiming that the opposite is true by introducing red herrings and straw man arguments, by quoting out of context, by peppering their story with false accusations, and meanwhile using the opportuntiy as a soapbox to campaign for their opinions, knowing full well that I can't respond to their assertions. Then when they feel they've sowed enough confusion they drop out, dismissing the debate they started as a wall of text. It's the same way they conduct Talk page- and ANI discussions. Through this method they were able to get full control of the article, to remove most of my contributions, to reduce the weight of RS, and finally to insert a large number of fake facts, dubious sources, biased opinions, and so on, getting me - the only critical voice - banned in the process. No wonder there are no subject matter experts working on this topic anymore. The facts of the case remain unchanged, however, so it's still possible to approach them in a rational manner. Saflieni (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you think are the chances of getting your topic ban lifted? I ask because there comes a time when one considers whether it's worth more effort or whether it's better to move on to something more productive. That time has come for me. Goodbye. I hope in some way your situation will improve. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Incredible. If that's the attitude, Wikipedia's alleged war against disinformation [21] is lost before it starts. Saflieni (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should hire professional factcheckers to weed out the potentially dangerous mis- and disinformation, especially in cases like these where fringe theories and political propaganda are major concerns. The editors and admins who've involved themselves so far have shown that their competencies do not include reading comprehension and critical thinking. These shortcomings make them (and Wikipedia) susceptible to all kinds of falsehoods and manipulations. Saflieni (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Curious readers: all this BLUDGEONing is for one disputed article In Praise of Blood. Test your own reading comprehension: is it a Wikipedia article citing RS to describe a controversial book or is it a potentially dangerous conspiracy by two incompetent editors to promote FRINGE theories about genocide? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Afraid somebody might actually check what you write? Don't worry, people don't like to face the fact they're manipulable, so nobody will run the risk of finding out that they've bought into hundreds of falsehoods over the past few months. It's like Rosguill said: "rebuttals were unnecessary". They might disturb the illusion. Nice touch, btw: suggesting it's about just one article. Saflieni (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• That's a good question you ask here, Bob K31416: [22]. I could answer such questions and substantiate my criticism with verifiable facts if someone lifts the ban (and the smokescreen). When HouseOfChange started editing that article two months ago, they explained that they came "to this article only because [they] needed a QPQ at DYK." They didn't have any relevant knowledge about the subject and there's no indication they were ever even interested in the genocide, the country, or even Africa in general prior to this. Yet they've been acting as though they're in possession of superior knowledge, have attacked and "corrected" senior scholars and other subject matter experts, and have posted politically polarized remarks. What's going on, indeed.Saflieni (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

PS: How many falsehoods and polarizing remarks do you count in the reply to your question, Bob K31416? [23]. Or in the other responses? The advocacy continues unchecked, courtesy of "Jimbo"'s and Arbcom's indifference. If anyone is still interested in the truth here, they're welcome to ask me for the evidence. Saflieni (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Saflieni has been been blocked for WP:TBAN violation. I hope they make peace. Vikram Vincent 05:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The future of Wikipedia A free encyclopedia. --Inspiration provided by Wikipedia's 20 anniversary, an occasion worth celebrating.

The whole world really appreciates your creation of Wikipedia that have had positively impacted everyone on the planet. But please give up your utmost authority to ban editor as well as your power of veto over any bill that comes across your desk. It's about time we democratize the organization that will hand a fair digital world to our offspring who's grown with the vibrant 3C technologies nowadays.

Stepping down as the king of Wikipedia will bring the virtual world into a new era like what you have done by creating Wikipedia in early 2000s, and definitely will once again impress the real world!

You will be remembered as not only a tech genius but a moral giant and be written down into the textbook as an example across the world.

Thank you!

References

Also, thanks to every Wikipedian for paving the way for a better future!

Life is short so let us live it to the fullest! (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo has used his rightful power well, and of course should keep it. There are times when such a veto is needed. Hopefully he will hold it for at least another 20 years. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The request also fails to take into account that, for example, even though I am an admin, I have voluntarily committed not to use the block power. I do not believe that I have the power to unilaterally ban any editor against the wishes of the community. There is a clearly delineated set of reserved powers which I do hold in theory (foremost among them, the right to call for an election of the English language arbitration committee) which I would never use except with a clear mandate of the community. There are a great many areas where we don't have written-out policy, and where simple good sense is needed. We have never had a constitutional crisis of that magnitude (in which ArbCom goes rogue) and we are not likely to - but it seems wise to have some mechanism for dealing with it.

If it isn't me, then it's the WMF. And there is a very real difference in that. If I were to act in a way that didn't have the support of the vast majority of active editors, then it's pretty clear that there would be an RfC to remove me from any traditional role at all, and that would be the end of that. If the WMF were to act in a way that didn't have the support of the vast majority of active editors, then you've got a very very real and very different situation where nothing short of a general strike of editors would be likely to change things. This is one of the reasons I am advocating for increased community control (in various ways) over the composition of the board of directors - to make that issue less likely to arise over time.

I take very seriously my role here and I believe that any attempt by me to do anything bad would fail. But it will be very useful in case the community needs strength and support, whether against a rogue Arbcom or a rogue WMF, that I have some mostly theoretical, and mostly historical function that can be utilized - on the advice of the community - when we need it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for being candid although I am not sure if you were replying to me; I assume your response as an indirect reply. Please let me know if I am wrong. Alright, back to the topic of the discussion. Because you said I have some mostly theoretical, and mostly historical function that can be utilized - on the advice of the community - when we need it., could you please let us know what general advices have you ever given to the WMF and ArbCom over the past one year (for the convenience of your memory)? It's important to know that Dominance is seen through manifest behaviors as indicated through the nonverbal and verbal indicators-Expression of dominance. Thus, I still suggest that Jimmy step down as the king because you value your role here and the future of Wikipedia. I am afraid that your status of being a king speaks louder than your advice to the advisee. Thanks again for your time. Life is short so let us live it to the fullest! (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo is the main safety net; without him Wikipedia has the most undemocratic ivory tower structure possible. Not only is WMF largely self-appointed, they can even remove the few elected board members, and they also get to change the constitution/ by laws. I would trust making Jimbo an absolute dictator more than I would trust what we would have without him. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Code of conduct

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)

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, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What's necessary to make this happen?

Other enlightened organizations have decided to update nomenclature:

• There are many ways to respond to injustice, both large and small, but each response is important. While we acknowledge it is a small change, Cisco Talos is moving to replace our use of the terms "blacklist" and "whitelist" with "block list" and "allow list.” [24]
• [Google] Chrome and Chromium developers are to avoid the words “blacklist” and “whitelist” in favor of the neutral terms “blocklist” and “allowlist.” [25]

This is a good read:

• Next, somebody got up a blacklist on which you get if you don't vote right. Then when lodges come into being, the folks they didn't want in them got blackballed. If you kept a skeleton in your closet, you might get blackmailed. And everything bad was black. - Langston Hughes [26]

The implicit argument, "It's no problem because it doesn't affect me," seems to have taken root at the page move discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist#Requested_move_10_February_2021. That discussion is not going well because the self-selected group of people watching that page are vested in the legacy terminology. I think we will need a broader community discussion at WP:CENT to replace all of our official uses of "blacklist" and "whitelist" with language that is self-explanatory and free of racial connotations (e.g., black is bad, white is good). We can adopt "block list" and "safe list" (or "allow list") as examples or other names that are neutral, concise, and clear. Because I obviously have a strong opinion about this, it might be better for somebody perceived as neutral to kick off that discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, when I said "What's necessary to make this happen?" I wasn't talking about what's necessary to bring about cultural change in the community and the organization. I meant it in a much more nuts-and-bolts way. I assume that the name of the page is relevant to the mediawiki software and I'm unclear on whether it can be changed by the community or whether it's a thing for the foundation. I think it is obvious that the change will happen: there are zero valid arguments against it. "block list" and "safe list" are excellent alternatives. I'm just unclear on exactly where the change needs to happen so that I can put whatever weight I can behind making that change happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is not an accurate summary at all. While the change wouldn't be harmful per se, the fundamental argue that "blacklist" and "whitelist" are harmful/racist is incredibly patronising, and woldn't be proposed or endorsed by anyone thinking of black people as (fellow) people. It can be a well intentioned suggestion in a White Man's Burden kind of way; but that's still of course incredibly patronising/racist/whatnot. You can't expect or demand people takeup that attitude. WilyD 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Jehochman suggested that an accepted term can be perceived as racist. Google and Cisco also find the term objectionable. It will be great if we can discuss a proposed change in terminology without hostility. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the summary or not, that's not a positive argument for refusing to do it. Let me tell you a story that may help illustrate the issue. My grandmother, when I was growing up in Alabama in the 1970s, used the term 'negroes'. She did it because, to her, it was an uncontroversial term, indeed it was the polite term. The battle against the term was led by people she didn't think highly of, like Malcolm X. She felt that it would be ridiculous to change, but guess what: the English language changes, terminology changes, and what once was intended to be the polite term because an offensive term. Wikipedia says: "However, during the 1950s and 1960s, some black American leaders, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word Negro because they associated it with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse.[10] Malcolm X preferred Black to Negro, but also started using the term Afro-American after leaving the Nation of Islam.[11]" Negro#United_States.

Was it fair that as she grew older in the 1980s, people would hear her say "Negro" and think of her as racist? Well, I'll leave that decision up to you. But they did, and even if she wasn't racist (I'm not saying she was or wasn't as it isn't relevant to what I'm explaining to you) she increasingly sounded racist and in particular her insistence on using a term that by then had clearly come to be understood as racist was especially problematic.

Guess what - the language is on the move again. Fortunately, newer terms like "block list" and "safe list" eliminate the problem completely and we can move on to other more important and fundamental issues of inclusion. Meanwhile, the people who fight against it increasingly sound like my out of touch grandmother in the 1980s.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between conforming to the current cultural norms and being part of a movement to create them. If the change from blacklist and words like it, becomes a cultural norm or is seen to be becoming a cultural norm, then Wikipedia should adopt that change. However I don't see that as the current situation. For Wikipedia to change it now would be participating and encouraging the change. I think Wikipedia should focus on what it is, an encyclopedia, not an instrument for cultural change. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that (with some caveats and explanations of what I mean and don't mean) with respect the content of encyclopedia articles. But this is not about that, this is about the naming convention for a technical page.

You're conflating editorial policy, i.e. "The Wikipedia reflects coverage in reliable sources; it follows, not leads" with internal project policy. Apples and oranges. ValarianB (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, the example with "negro" is good, but I am not sure the conclusion is correct. Malcolm X objected to usage of "negro" because it referred to centuries of slavery, but what about the word "slave" itself? This word comes from Medieval Latin "slavus", which meant "Slav", because most slaves in Medieval Europe were Slavs. However, I am 100% sure even modern Slavs do not know about that fact, and no Russian, Serb or Czech in clear mind would demand to ban the word "slave", and that is because this word in its modern meaning has no relation to any present days social conflict. In contrast, the attempts to ban the word "negro" without resolving the roots of the conflict are more like a modern "cargo cult". I would say, that they are even more harmful than useful, because persistent attempts to weed out any "negroes", "black-..." etc just draw more attention to that issue, thereby promoting these words to the rank of "the one who shall not be named".

It will never be possible to wipe out any mention of black slavery, or such epithets as "negro" etc from human memory, and the goal is to create a society where all those historical words would be seen as non-related to present days interracial relationships (similarly to the word "slave", which lost its original meaning). Obviously, the approach proposed in that section by no means serves to that goal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Langston Hughes does not agree with you, WilyD. If you can find a source for some scholar endorsing your view, I will consider it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Re "nuts and bolts", similar discussions I've seen elsewhere chose "blocklist" and "allowlist". Changes in MediaWiki would be required and, in 2017, phab:T173080 discussed using "Denylist" and "Allowlist". That discussion went nowhere with comments similar to some seen here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If mediawiki changes, does the name of the page change automatically? That is to say, it's not going to break anything that the community is doing? If that's right, then I will see what I can do on that side of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the details but renaming would require significant effort on the technical side and here. The pages which control the blacklist are MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and meta:Spam blacklist (and corresponding whitelist pages) which are used by mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist. Pages here that would need reworking include Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. According to a comment here, the changes could be achieved reasonably but should occur as a rewrite of the underlying software to be a more scalable external links filter. Apparently very little if any work on that has occurred in recent years. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Jehochman, Johnuniq, et al. This task is being used to track the existing work to change the language across MediaWiki. phab:T254646 Ckoerner (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think this a no-lose change. (1) It's logically and societally aware (2) it's more obvious what these pages are for editors who don't have English as their first language (3) it irritates racists. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) I am not sure; (2) In my mother tongue, we use the equivalent of English "blacklist", and I am sure the situation is the same in most Indo-European languages (don't know about others); and that has no (and never had any) racist connotations; (3) I always thought that goal is not to irritate racists, but to convert racists into non-racists. An irritated racist becomes more devoted racist, isn't it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Language that equates black with bad and white with good does harm to people who are also identified as "Black". It's not that the language is racist, it's that it's one more place where you get the message that there's something wrong with you. As far as the claim that we should not irritate racists because it will make them more racist - facts and reality irritates racists, my very existent irritates them. We can't craft an encyclopaedia or live our lives not doing what's right because it might irritate racists. We'd be making their ideal world for them. Guettarda (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's a no-lose change. Something like "block list" and "allow list" or similar has the advantage of not using colors as metaphors for good and bad, while having zero disadvantages. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I disagree with most if not all of what you are saying. I strongly object to your claim that "blocklist" is not an English word because you couldn't find it in an American dictionary. It was easy enough to find it in the British Collins dictionary.[27] A Google search turns up many uses of the term - how can it not be an English word when it's used so much? I agree that it's a no-lose change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

• On https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/racial-data-transparency, it can be seen that, in the United States, people of color are proportionately more affected than the average person. Everything happens as if all these people were on a black-list. But, from now on, everything will be better: these people will only be on a banned-list. Oh you, the righteous people, how benevolent you are! Pldx1 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  How easy it is to ignore somebody else’s suffering. We get it. This doesn’t affect you and you’d rather not be bothered to help anybody else. Jehochman ^Talk 23:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  How easy it is to be a white knight out to change the world. No comment on the change but you sound rather sanctimonious and that's not the way to get things done. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	e Sushi.money (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Boundary between BDS advocacy and anti-Semitism?

Hi Jimbo. As I understand you have been involved in the pertinent Labour Party disputes, would you please say whether or not we can have a robust, full-throated debate on the pro and con merits of boycott, divestiture, and sanctions against Israeli-Palestinian apartheid without accusations of anti-Semitism? 107.242.121.1 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)