User talk:Jimbo Wales

[ATJ] Misbehaving sysop "Pablo Escobar", piracy, and permanent ban at the EO Wiktionary

Hello

My name is Taylor and I have been active at various wikies (EN,EO,ID,SV) for 2 years. Unfortunately I have run into severe trouble on EO Wiktionary. I am currently permanently (formally 3 months) banned there for the 3rd time.

The state if the EO Wiktionary is fairly bad (example of a Wiktionary in a good state: SV). The worse thing is the excessive piracy there. The administrator Pablo is obsessed by "improving the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by mass-copying everything from everywhere (other Wiktionaries (preferably DE), Wikipedia, over 100 years old low quality dictionaries, other (non-GFDL) sources, ...). Maybe copying from DE Wiktionary is not a "real" crime, it is just desperately useless. Pablo has already copied 10'000's of pages and templates from there. For example the section about the SV word "mus" (EN: mouse) as left behind by Pablo "improving the quality" was full of explanations in DE and translations to DE. I have fixed that page. I have fixed 100's of other pages with similar problems. Another fine page recently "contributed" by Pablo (efter having banned me) Kaiser - note the red template and category links, the "nekonata" whining and the script errors, as well as the dominance of DE and lack of EO. I have also fixed 100's of pages copied from some old SV<->EO dictionary, by correcting the provided translation, adding further translations, or labeling the word as "archaic". There used to be 7 templates for same thing: plural form of EN noun. One of them is copied from EN Wiktionary, others are copied from DE Wiktionary and renamed several times by Pablo. Many of them worked badly due to Pablo's lack of skills and "puristic" changes (replacing traditional grammar terminology like "pluralo" by "genuine" EO words constructed by literally translating ridiculously long compound words from DE) resulting in broken templates showing things like {{{2}}}. I created a new well-working template even suitable for "though" words like "virus" of "die". My work switching to the new template and deprecating the broken ones was violently interrupted by the ban. I have also created several (not insanely many) EO pages with definitions and examples. EO Wiktionary is far away from having satisfactory pages about even the most elementary EO words. Pablo doesn't care at all about definitions (the hardest part). Many pages about EO words "contributed" by em consist of nothing but the translation block, brainlessly copied from DE Wiktionary without changes, frequently even containing EO as destination language (the translation of the EO word "kato" into EO is "kato"). But the "best contributor" Pablo copies (frequently particularly lousily) from other (non-GFDL) sources as well. The problem got pointed some time ago by one former user (who had left EO Wiktionary). Pablo deleted the 3 pointed pages (I re-created 2 of them without piracy soon after) and ey promised to delete all other pirated pages that ey would find. Ey gave a f**k about even searching. Later I pointed 2 further pirated pages. Pablo ignored the message. There are 1000's of more of less directly pirated pages there.

There are currently 3 active "contributors" at the EO Wiktionary. Me, permanently banned and unable to edit anything except my discussion page full of unproductive bickering with Pablo and appeals than nobody reads. Then Noelekim contributing valuable edits to an EN->EO list-type dictionary. Pablo has even created a few EN pages, (lousily) copying from this dictionary. This contributor doesn't edit any other pages and doesn't participate in discussions and bickering (maybe ey just fears a ban). The last and actually pretty exclusive "contributor" is Pablo "working" hard in order to turn the former EO Wiktionary into another (piracy-powered) DE Wiktionary.

Pablo doesn't appreciate my contributions at all. I have been accused many times for "notoriously destroying other people's work". According to Pablo brainless mass-copying is valuable "work", while fixing such mess by me is "destroying other people's work". I was also working to create a few smarter templates allowing to replace hundreds of primitive mass-created or mass copied-in templates. This was not appreciated either, the work is not finished and I can't continue. There are frequently absurdly many (3 or even 5 or even more) templates for very same thing, just abbreviated and spelled differently ("ark", "Ark", "ark.", "Arkit", "ARK", ...). There are redundant templates copied from other Wiktionaries, spelled in DE, ES, IT and more. Pablo is continuing to "really improve the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by adding further redundant templates. I got also accused for "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". I had admittedly edited many templates, but none of my edits had the effect according to the accusations. More likely Pablo is angry about the fact that I have skills for editing templates and modules while ey does not have such skills, and solved eir problem with undesirable competition by banning me. But it comes even worse. Some time ago (year 2014) Pablo emself performed a (primitive) edit on a template (EO verb declension table) with effect according to accusations: "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". Ey even boasted with this edit in the news (year 2017, pretty late news) on the title page (that nobody else can edit). Apparently Pablo has the right to "spread evil neologisms to all pages via templates" while I don't have such a right, because Pablo is the emperor while I am just nothing. Note that I actually have NOT spread any neologisms to all pages via templates. The previous ban was "justified" by among Other Nonsense Complaints About Me Refusing To Use Uppercase Letters. This seems to be a "rule" imported by the DE nationalist Pablo from the DE Wiktionary. I refuse to follow DE rules (Obligation To Begin Every Word With An Uppercase Letter) at the EO Wiktionary.

I have got banned 3 times. The "justifications" given by Pablo are very long but incomprehensible even for people proficient in EO, and accusing me for including but not limited to "acting like a dictator" (Pablo emself either doesn't act like a dictator, or maybe ey does have the right to act like a dictator while I don't), "using lowercase letters" (see above), "notoriously destroying other people's work" (see above), "repeatedly submitting nonsense" (apparently Pablo's own nonsense (this is DE again, not EO) either doesn't count as nonsense, or maybe Pablo has an absolute right to submit unlimited amount of (pirated) nonsense, while I don't have a comparable right), or "spreading evil neologisms to all pages" (see above).

After having banned me the last time, Pablo published a news item about me containing not only false accusations about "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates", but also evil sexist insults using male words despite I am not male. I cannot answer to the post denying the shameful nonsense because I am banned.

Pablo got crowned to permanent administrator in year 2010 by just 3 YES votes from totally 3 votes. Those 3 people left the project long ago, Pablo remained and became the permanent absolute emperor at the EO Wiktionary. The last successful election to an administrator was held 2017-Jan, Castelobranco got 4 YES votes from totally 4 votes. The steward restricted Castelobranco's adminship to 1 year pointing to the low amount of votes of 4, while Pablo with 3 votes previously got permanent adminship. Castelobranco left the project 4 months later, eir adminship expired silently 2018-Jan, and Pablo alone is now the absolute emperor for all eternity.

Pablo gives notoriously a f**k about community consensus. About 1/2 year ago I initiated 2 ballots:

• "Should DE play a privileged role here at the EO Wiktionary?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes
• "Should non-EO words have a translation block?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes

Great! But Pablo gives a f**k about it and continues copying complete pages from DE Wiktionary, together with all "needed" templates with DE names. This method apparently "saves work" for Pablo. The SV Wiktionary does not have a single DE template, and non-SV words don't have any translation block (and not images either). Pablo's aggressive DE nationalism is taking over the EO Wiktionary and nobody (except me) dares to protest.

I have repeatedly suggested for Pablo to go back to the DE Wiktionary where ey apparently came from. No result.

There are further problems with Pablo's conduct. In the recycle bin there are almost 1'000 candidates for deletion accumulated during many years. Pablo gives a f**k about deleting them. Ey doesn't archive the discussion page (90% of content is globally distributed spam in EN) either.

On the title page of the EO Wiktionary (that nobody except Pablo can edit) we can read that the EO Wiktionary is supposed to become "the greatest and most complete" dictionary ever. Just now this "greatest and most complete" project ever has the most incapable and arrogant administrator ever, filling the dictionary by (lousily) pirating from over 100 years old low quality dictionaries and other dubious sources (DE Wiktionary), and banning everybody attempting to contribute in a different manner. Pablo has repeatedly boasted with things like "I have been tolerating your" ... (followed by absurd accusations) ... "but now my patience is exhausted". Pablo behaves like the exclusive owner of the EO Wiktionary and a dictator.

There is no reason at all why Pablo should be an administrator. Neither the election 8 years ago (electors went away long ago, and on many wikies all admins have to be reconfirmed evey year), nor merits (the amount of edits is tremendous, but it's >= 99% piracy, Pablo is a manually operating pirating bot), nor the skills (Pablo can barely code templates, and not att all code modules), and last but not least nor the conduct.

On the EO Wiktionary there is a page Administrantoj with section Misuzo_de_la_administrantaj_rajtoj (abuse of the admin rights) saying:

Al administranto povas esti liaj rajto deprenita, se tiu la rajtoj misuzas. Nuntempe povas la admnistrant-statuso esti deprenita aŭ per decido de Jimbo Wales, aŭ pere de decido de Arbitracia komisiono. Laŭ ilia decido oni povas doni malpli altajn punojn, ekz. limigo de uzado de iuj funkcioj. Teĥnike povas la administrantajn rajtoj depreni stevardoj.

An administrator can be deprived of eir rights if ey abuses those rights. Currently the admin-status can be canceled by either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee. According to their decisions lower punishments can be ruled, for example restricting the usage of some functions. Technically the stewards are responsible for removing administrator rights.

The "Arbitration Committee" is a red link. There doesn't seem to exist any Arbitration Committee on the EO Wiktionary, and the promised "Global Arbitration Committee" doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I tried to appeal via my user page but the template {{unblock}} doesn't work there, Pablo gives a f**k about my appeals and no other admin exists. Then I appealed to the Arbitration Committee on the EN Wikipedia. The result was a rejection by only 8 NO-votes from 8 total votes sending me to "Requests for comment". Nobody seems to read that page, the only one comment posted there sends me to you. During a pause between 2 bans I seized the occasion and posted a proposal to desysop Pablo. Not a single comment or vote came it.

It is extremely easy to create a new account and continue editing from it, or just edit as an IP-address. Unfortunately I would prefer to leave Pablo alone with bad behaviour and avoid coming near to sockpuppetry. Nor I am willing to wait until 2019-Feb-13 when the ban is expected to expire, allowing me to perform a few edits before I get banned again, maybe for 2 years, maybe genuinely permanently.

The EO Wiktionary has been hijacked by a severely misbehaving administrator. There is no local community able to deal with this. There is no exclusive private right for Pablo to own a public wiki. 2 "instances" have sent me to you with the issue. Please desysop Pablo. Thank you. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to 10 separate examples of copyrighted material that is reproduced on the Esperanto Wiktionary? I would like to see links to the Wiktionary page and links to the copyrighted pages the material came from. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Jimbo Wales: YES we can. Do you need 10 pages? Here you have 4 (this is NOT all):

• junto (created 2014-Jul-12 by "Pablo Escobar", nominated for deletion 2018-Oct-18 by "Tayor 49", not yet deleted) pirated from vortaro.net/#junto
• loka%C5%ADti pirated from vortaro.net/#loka%C5%ADto
• kazo pirated from vortaro.net/#kazo
• komparacio pirated from vortaro.net/#komparacio

BTW: some IP-dumbhead succeeded to create a "well working" template "unblock" in the meantime. Taylor 49 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) fixed Taylor 49 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The first three led me to a box that supposed I should fill out -- but I don't understand the language. The last one claims that https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/komparacio was pirated from https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/komparacio.

Let's try again. Give me a single example where I can read both pages and verify that the text is the same or nearly the same, and where the source does not have a Creative Commons or public domain license that allows re-use. I plan on using Google Translate to figure out what the pages say, and may ask for a translation of the Goggle translate software doesn't give me the same general meaning for both pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I fixed my stupid C&P-error above. Is it the left links or right links that do not work for you? The right links "vortaro.net" do work for me and there is no box that one is supposed to fill in. If they don't work for you then we have a phenomenon called Geo-blocking. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Page eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/junto was pirated from vortaro.net/#junto (screenshot of "vortaro.net": s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/3227363piracy.png). Hopefully you are not geoblocked from seeing the screenshot too. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, after a minor intervention by AFBorchert, some pseudo-progress occurred in the matter. Pablo answered to my appeal (result: still permanently banned) and deleted the two pages junto and loka%C5%ADti with empty comment. Note that something like "Deleting page previously pirated by me, Pablo Escobar, from PIV ie vortaro.net, and sorry for the piracy." would have been more suitable than silence. There are more piracies available: ricevi pirated from vortaro.net/#ricevi. Is it now my task or Pablo's task to find and delete all the piracies from there? I still don't see any reason why Pablo should be sysop there or anywhere on any public Wiki. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

A steward deleted 3 files from EO Wiktionary. Probably not a symptom of a well-funtioning local sysop. Can someone look into the core problem (someone who "accidentally" became sysop 8 years ago owns a public wiki)? Taylor 49 (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: These deletions were done on request on Meta. It is common practice to ask stewards to delete your own Javascript/CSS configurations on various projects to enable your global settings (see meta:Synchbot). This is in no way related to the adminship of Pablo Escobar. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@AFBorchert and Jimbo Wales: Maybe. There is still a problem with Pablo exclusively "owning" the EO Wiktionary, the unjustified ban that cannot be appealed against, and the piracy. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: In your comments you address two points, your temporary block and the possible copyvios. I wonder whether the latter was discussed at Esperanto Wiktionary before. In my opinion it would be best to start with the local processes on the Esperanto Wiktionary. If this fails, i.e. if copyvios are not taken care of, this could be posted at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous with a reference to the local discussion. Even if there is only a very small community at that site, the community should not be bypassed. Perhaps it could be helpful to ask a seasoned admin of the Esperanto Wikipedia project for advise. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@AFBorchert and Jimbo Wales: As stated above, the piracy has been discussed at EO Wiktionary. Pablo is willing to delete pages but one has to separately heavilly pressure em for every single piracy page (strategy "if you can't avoid it then make it at least as expensive as possible"). The fact that I am banned makes it impossible for me to discuss anywhere outside of my user page. I did not try at all to bypass the degenerated local community (see many links above). But Pablo gives a f**k about almost everything. The local processes simply don't work. Pablo doesn't care and nobody else is present. I have not yet tried to ask a former sysop, but I fear an answer "I am no longer sysop thus this is NOT my problem.". Most of them apparently have left EO Wiktionary, left EO community, or even left Wikipedia. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Only the owner can edit eir private public Wiktionary. Am I just stupid, or is this a fault in the system, that a more or less randomly crowned (incapable) sysop can completely take over control over a formerly public wiki ? Taylor 49 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

People from the biggest Wiki don't understand issues at a degenerated Wiki without community. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Prescient comments

I was going through dusty old files and found this. Thought it might give you a chuckle. Or a shudder of recognition. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Just to let you know....

...that whenever I see a racist comment on any page, I plan to remove it, and I will likely block the contributor. Please let me know if you have any problems with this. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds completely appropriate to me. Be sure to carefully follow policy and of course don't over-interpret remarks. But yes, racist commentary has no place in Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [32] just wrecked my head. I hate this kind of garbage, deeply. I thought about this post a bit while at work today, and I should add a disclaimer that I wouldn't remove material that is "contextual," within an article. For example, a (very stupid) politician who has made some kind of racist remark that was noteworthy, or you know, historical comments, that are part of the knowledge base in WP. But if it's just random bigotry that I happen to find here and there, well....none of us should suffer such fools gladly. Or at all. Thanks for the "nod." Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course. Sometimes articles need to cover racism and racist attitudes. Of course we'll need to have examples in at least some such cases. I understood your meaning the first time around. But yeah, that comments - the one you linked to, above - is clearly out of line and not ok for Wikipedia at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)"

I hope we are still standing strong against this - and a lot more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a big deal to a lot of people. I'll use this space to wish you the best in the coming year... WP is still one of the best presents I've ever gotten. Can you guess how many times I've cracked a Britannica in the past 15 years!? Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Some racial issues are difficult to explain: There seems to be confusion about racial issues, with some users being suspicious about hidden racial terms. For example, in the U.S., many people think the term "slave" automatically means "African black slave" because more than 10 million negro slaves were shipped from Africa into the Caribbean or South America during colonial times, while over 90% of U.S. antebellum slaves were born in the U.S. plus thousands were Native American slaves (not black) as in the New Mexico Territory, slaves termed "Genízaros" (see: [1]). Hence, talking about slaves can seem a suspicious reference to black/white racial issues, and people will hunt for hidden meanings behind every phrase. Meanwhile, WP has been overrun by users trying to equate the Confederacy with slavery, rather than check the sources which note how Southerners were freeing slaves up through the War and some States wanted the Confederacy to become a slave-only nation; however, the moderate legislators from Alabama and others decided not to banish free states as expelling states from the Confederacy if they emancipated slaves within a state ([2] p.105). After checking the facts, the Confederacy emerges as a moderate nation which limited the powers of their central government, limited federal spending on lighthouses or maritime navigation, forbid protectionist tariffs of import bounties (see: Morrill Tariff), and tried to deter federal pork barrel projects while allowing states to free slaves.

  Unfortunately, when trying to update WP pages about the phase-out of antebellum slavery, there is the risk of people seeing all issues as black/white tensions and screaming "racism". Such screaming has stunted WP's coverage of the American Civil War and the immense accomplishments of black people in building towns and bridges or elaborate mansions (Arlington House, Nottoway Plantation, etc.). Just mention blacks working with whites to build massive buildings or towns operating with numerous slaves running the daily activities ([3]), and beware the bickering.... For example, the first black soldiers in the Civil War were armed Confederate troops (thousands re Battle of First Manassas, see: [4]), while the Union had almost no black soldiers until March 1863, two years later, with the late introduction of the U.S. Colored Troops (USCT). There are many fascinating sources about teaching black craftsmen, better conditions after the French Code Noir (1685), and 1840-1865 attempts to repatriate slaves to Africa as in the American Colonization Society, etc. WP needs to stop all the racial witchhunts, add the facts about what black people actually have accomplished (even in the Cotton States), and try to discuss racial fears in a civil manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2018, +sources & link "Genízaros". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Also as segregated North vs elitist South: Without calling any officials "racist" then perhaps WP can note how the U.S. Congress banned black employees in 1810 from U.S. Postal Service (see: [5]), or how Confederate President Jefferson Davis advised army re black Confederate soldiers but also fostered black child "Jim Limber" over a year in his home before end of Civil War. I have found a source stating how Southern slaves were treated as children (who never grew up), but it seems they could be semi-family members who "kept in their place". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You already raised the racist "Irish slavery" trope and were slapped down and in fact blocked. You now appear to be engaged in full on "some of my friends are black" defence of Confederate racism - and you do it in the context of a discussion of Jimbo's a comment that racists should be blocked. I suggest you stop before this is once again found to be trolling and you end up blocked perhaps for a longer period. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to hear every side. Racial harassment is a real problem, as is any form of harassment, but editors who merely have racist beliefs should be debated fairly. Classic racist "evidence" like The Bell Curve badly needs to be put into context not merely of broader socioeconomic factors but in terms of child development, epigenetics and other ways in which a people may have to fight off lingering impacts of inequality for more than one generation. In recent news, one of the more amusing things coming out is that traditional racism, based on human genetics, may have neglected to notice that we are not humans, but ecosystems. Gut microbiota, affecting secretion of oxytocin in the brain, can determine whether an animal is autistic or not, [6] and these microbiota vary fairly consistently between the self-identified racial groups that have so little human genetic meaning. [7] Do the things we eat, the particular plants which have domesticated bacteria and mammals to serve their self-propagation, affect our character in subtler ways than autism? Perhaps people will be banned from the talk pages for inordinate hatred or pride regarding Lactobacillus reuteri heritage. Wnt (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting points about diseases which affect racial views. Also, I had suspected racial bias in one source, but kept reading to learn about Confederate President Jefferson Davis fostering a black child in 1864-65 (mulatto boy Jim Limber as his ward). People who self-righteously condemn others for "racism" are likely to be using reverse racism as thinking they are members of a master race of people who are not "racist" when judging other people as if lower than themselves. The irony can seem quite comical, but it is also sad to see such people with racial hangups and wonder why they harbor such hatred about racial issues that they want to silence everyone else without really listening. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to make a point about not stifling discussions about racism and racial issues. I think. It's actually really hard to parse the meaning of your ramblings. However, in doing so, you come off as nothing more than a racism and slavery apologist. Stuff like slave owners treating their slaves like children and Davis fostering a black child in particular stand out as examples of such apologism ("they treated their slaves well, those black people were actually pretty well off!")--Atlan (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you looked for the hidden meaning behind every phrase I clearly stated, so let me note it was "hard to parse" because I had no hidden meaning to parse. Now, I think there were over 3,700 antebellum black slaveowners, who owned black slaves, and it would be interesting to note how they were treated, in general, or if their work was hired out. Also, in over 10,000 slave weddings, between plantations, note how the bride/groom met each other across plantations. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't admit any such thing and your response, unsurprisingly, makes absolutely no sense.--Atlan (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77, dang boy, you hit the nail on the head. What were they complaining about? And who was kinder to slaves than the General, who almost freed the slaves that weren't his though they enriched him, or good old Jeff Davis, who was as kind to the blacks as George Wallace was? Who put the "lost" in Lost Cause of the Confederacy? Nothing but gallant chivalry against No-thern agression! If William Ellison owned slaves, that means slavery wasn't bad, and/or blacks DID IT TOO you know! Does Texas also do MLK and Robert E. Lee on the same day? (I can't believe I'm reading this.) Drmies (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating dialogue... You other editors have illuminated subtleties that I had only alluded too in my decade old post. It is obvious that in article space the project must give coverage to certain and conspicuous historical aspects of racist behavior. My truest intent in my OP to Jimmy was to clarify that I would banish editors who were actively vandalizing the 'pedia with their horrible bigoted shite. Moot point now, because I am no longer an admin. But I will "tell tale" on any racist pigs I see vandalizing our nice, tidy and perfect palace of words. My Best Regards to you noble editors! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help correct the "Irish Slavery Debate" which WP has covered for 2 years as a white-slave myth, despite history professors concluding that Irish slaves were both slaves and Irish indentured servants when kidnapped from Ireland and sold into forced labor by ship captains in the Caribbean islands (especially "Barbadoes"), during 1640-1665 re Cromwell. For years the WP article, as "Irish slaves myth", has promoted the viewpoint that those Irish men, women and children were not slaves at all, but merely "servants" despite being described as "Irish slaves" for centuries in historical writings. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The Irish slaves myth trope again? Really? Have you never heard of the Law of Holes? Guy (Help!) 09:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Wnt: I do not subscribe to both-sides-ism when it comes to racism on Wikipedia. Remember that the two sides in the "debate" over racism basically come down to whether skin colour makes someone less human or not. There is a long and inglorious history of trying to split the difference on this, most notably the three fifths compromise. Racism is antithetical to Wikipedia's ethos, and editors who come here to advance racist ideas can and should be shown the door. We don't need to hear from them directly, we have plenty of sources that discuss their views. Racists and holocaust deniers can get in the sea as far as I am concerned: we do not need them in order to neutrally cover their views, and their mere presence here is often disruptive. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a very narrow generalization of racist beliefs, but when racism is actually alleged it seems to have a far wider scope. Criticizing minority cultural differences, opposing immigration, opposing Islam on political/philosophical grounds, opposing Zionism, defending police shootings, even making light of the potential reactions of an unspecified uncontacted tribe all can and often are presented as racist. And sure, sometimes they are, but if you use it in that sense racism is a far more prevalent and far less serious phenomenon than you make it out to be. But the biggest thing that we miss out on when we fail to engage with even the most benighted racists is the thought involved. You make it sound like the equality of the races is some kind of law of nature, when the truth is, it's a decent approximation of an empirical result. There are no races, nor even any families, who can't work mathematics or can't appreciate music or are inherently incapable of following laws, and nobody can explain why. I mean, supposedly human behavior evolved, right? So where's the evolution? You have an entire planet of people running around with, by all appearances, the same souls with the same potential characteristics, with the same opportunities for sainthood and atrocity in every country and continent, and the effect of ignoring racism is that you forget that, you forget that what makes people human is utterly inexplicable in modern science. Wnt (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

See, Wnt, that's why I don't divide my bigotry. Every one of your points in the first sentence represents fine shades of unquestionable bigotry, even if it doesn't fit in the "racism" bucket. It creates a nice way for bigots to back out of blame for their fear and hatred, but are all still symptoms of the same disease. "It's not racist to criticize Islam" is only technically true, but that's only because the bigotry is not race-based, under most definitions of race. Let's start with being opposed to bigotry in all forms, and not worry about who the bigots have chosen to hate. There is no grey on any of these, it's the sort of thing we should not be giving credence to in any form. --Jayron32 21:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: The strange part is that many of us grew up among vociferous criticism of Christianity, and it's hard to understand why in the name of being non-bigoted we are encouraged to criticize one but prohibited from criticizing the other. I mean, when Monty Python put out Life of Brian, even amid Troubles, they did not even fear terrorism let alone being hunted down by the authorities and thrown in jail like Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, and certainly, they did not face an attitude that they deserved both those things to happen to them for stirring up trouble. For those who have seen religion be the plaything of politics for generations, it is frustrating to suddenly see a bastion of anti-gay, anti-female, anti-liberal thought that is taken to be an unassailable, unquestionable preserve that we are not to touch, and indeed, which many non-believers now treat with well-feigned reverence. Is that bigoted? Wnt (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I do draw a distinction between nationalism and racism, but in the current climate most nationalism is white nationalism and the most zealous opponents of immigration seem to have no problem with immigration - including anchor babies and chain migration - when the faces are white. One prominent proponent of white nationalist tropes has married three immigrants in succession, supported chain migration of the family of the third of these, and has never said a word about anchor babies from a hostile foreign power whose people are Slavic / white, possibly because the fathers are very often cronies of someone who has leverage over him. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A white nationalist might indeed take that position, but I think a large majority of Trump supporters would take an "illegal is illegal" position and not be favorable to loopholes for eastern Europe. It is also my impression that Brexit supporters and similarly-minded Europeans object to migration from the poor end of Europe, no matter how "Caucasian" it is. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? Let's go to the horses mouth re: Trump: Here trump advocates for restricting immigration from (his words) "shithole countries" during a discussion about immigration from countries with dark-skinned people (Haiti, El Salvador, various African nations) and suggested trying to increase immigration from "countries like Norway". It's funny how the same people who claim it's all about legal vs. illegal immigration simultaneously argue that we should make it easier for white people to legally immigrate and harder for darker people to legally immigrate. But you keep telling yourself it's not a racial issue. I'm sure if you repeat that enough, it will come true in the future. It's just clearly not true right now. --Jayron32 18:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I don't want to argue against you too hard, because I am suspicious of Trump on this point (more than his followers, though). But to me it looks like your path to victory is telling everybody who voted for Trump that they're not welcome on Wikipedia, which seems like a non-starter to me; and if this is all tied to "racism", you've done your own reductio ad absurdum. I should have called out your statement before that "It creates a nice way for bigots to back out of blame for their fear and hatred, but are all still symptoms of the same disease" above. Fear and hatred are a natural part of the human psyche, with dedicated regions of the limbic system; what racists do wrong is not that they hate and fear, but that in a world of low wages, acidifying oceans, wars, famines, plagues, crooks/corporations, and stupid bureaucratic policies, they waste their hatred and their fear on something pointless. Like the gasoline for an engine, hatred and fear are too precious to be sprayed around willy-nilly. But when you find yourself supporting excessive action against a large chunk of the population, and vilifying basic human emotions, what that means is you're reacting against a self antigen and participating in some kind of atopy. Take a step back and try again. Wnt (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You brought the subject of Trump up, and not me. I don't care who people voted for. I have no time, however, for people that excuse bigotry with hand waving, false equivalency, and facile, but wrong assessments of large ethnic or religious groups they know nothing about really, but are all to willing to mime incorrect arguments they heard from others because it confirms their simplistic worldview that people who look different or have a different religion than themselves are to be distrusted as an entire group.--Jayron32 03:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Real racists are very rare. A policy that aims to crack down hard on racists has the effect of imposing censorship on sensitive subjects. With all editors subject to such a regime, what you'll get is that occasionally people who are not racists will get banned or blocked. A recent real world example is the firing of Marc Lamont Hill from CNN "Yesterday, I gave a speech at the UN in which I critiqued Israel’s polices and practices toward Palestinians. It’s baffling how people are not responding to the critique, but instead responding to things I didn’t actually say." Count Iblis (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"Real racists are very rare," but fake racists are everywhere? Levivich (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Except of course they are responding to things he actually said, and he's just upset his antisemitism caught up to him. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear editorial colleagues, please... if my OP post is going to promote (unexpected) dialogue, let's not let it denigrate into name calling and finger pointing/ wagging. This is an important topic. Let us keep it very civil, if we possibly can? Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(Insert picture of a goat tied to a stick... here->) Thanks in advance, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Formalities

Hello Jimbo, please enjoy the WP:ACE2018#Result. Thanks! — regards, Revi 06:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at AN. Your input would be greatly appreciated

Hi Jimbo. A discussion is in progress at the AN noticeboard. Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Site_ban_or_topic_ban?

The community would be most grateful if you could make a brief comment there, on your thoughts on the matter. Colleagues are having a lively discussion on how to go forward, and as some of these issues were posted onto your talkpage, I think it is a matter of courtesy that you be informed and invited to comment. I do not believe you have been pinged, but I have done so. Just a few words would be sufficient. Kind regards, Simon Adler (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe so many of you people lined up to get an editor site-banned because he commented about Irish slaves and black slaveowners. This kind of liberal intolerance has been a major turn-off to voters and will do nothing to fight racism. In other news, the Republicans just sprung their scheme to secretly abolish Obamacare by altering it to be illegal, and now celebrate that Americans with "preexisting conditions" won't be able to get health coverage. [8] To me, denying kids access to medicine because they have diabetes seems a whole lot more like racism than any of the wild extensions of the term in the discussion above. Wikipedia liberals live in a dream world while conservatives are out there in reality building a true nightmare. Wnt (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Erm… this isn't "lining up to get an editor site-banned because he commented about Irish slaves and black slaveowners", this is pointing out that an editor who's repeatedly posting incoherent racist rants such as complaining that he's no longer allowed to describe black people as "niggers" isn't someone who reflects Wikipedia values, and that someone who continues posting incoherent racist rants immediately coming off a block for it, and when blocked a second time for it replies with this, isn't someone who's welcome on Wikipedia. I don't see how the internal politics of the US regarding healthcare has any relevance whatsoever to this incident. ‑ Iridescent 12:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually the problem for me was the combination of the "Irish slaves" myth, promoting a white nationalist trope as if it were a genuine problem with Wikipedia content, combined with revisionist comments about the Confederacy. That means he's either a white nationalist or has lost his ability to distinguish the unreliability of white nationalist sources. White nationalists - racists of all kinds - should be shown the door. The presence of racist speech ion talk pages creates a chilling effect. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Wnt.  Those who are so eager to have Wikid77 site-banned for making "racist" comments, might want to consult the definition of racist.  From our article racism:  "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity."  A similar definition for "racist" from Google is "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."  Do you have any diffs where you can show that he (or the material in his comments) either: (1) believes that one race is superior to another -or- (2) has shown discrimination or prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity?

Although I certainly disagree with some of his comments (especially his apology of Roseanne Barr's racist joke and his desire for "free speech" here) and find some of his comments either naive or insensitive (e.g. [9]), calling his comments so racist as to site-banning him is a stretch.  Many of his claims about the Confederacy he posted in the above section "Prescient comments" he backed up with WP:RS. I do see some level of Neo-Confederate#Historical_revisionism, but what I believe is most important in our discussions at Wikipedia is sticking to the best sources and following WP:NPOV, which I believe he thought he was doing. I did not see any of those who attacked his comments as "racist" as providing better sources that disagreed; instead, I believe the objections are based primarily on editors' feeling that the statements are racist based on what they have been taught about the Civil War--possibly from unreliable sources--rather than doing the harder work of looking at the sources. One of the sources Wikid77 used was Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America written by William C. Davis who is described as a Pulitzer Prize winning professor of history with Civil War emphasis. Our article on Davis has no controversy section one would expect of a Neo-Confederate historical revisionist.

Besides, if the comments are so offensive, why not simply remove them?  Then the discussion could be over whether the comment violated our rules.   --David Tornheim (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You state that "what I believe is most important in our discussions at Wikipedia is sticking to the best sources and following WP:NPOV, which I believe he thought he was doing." Then you try to claim that an example of this is Wikid77's use of William C. Davis. While it is true that Wikid77 made one passing reference to "Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America", in fact there is nobody who would disagree more with Wikid77's claims that secession was not about slavery than Davis. I own and have read the book as well as many others by Davis. For the benefit of those who don't have the book, I did a quick google using terms "look away william davis review" and came up with this scholarly review at [10]. That review states:

Davis begins by leaving no doubt about what made the Confederacy different. Slavery was the "only significant and defining difference" between the North and South, he argues (9), and "secession and the Confederacy's existence were predicated on slavery (130).

On page 106, right after the page that Wikid77 referenced, is the following (not in the review I cited):

But the oligarchs had a safeguard even there, for they made their most vital issue, slavery, a part of their constitutional fabric and thus untouchable ... . On this issue alone, they knowingly violated all the arguments about state rights that their section had been making for generations, for they set slavery above state sovereignty: inviolate, untouchable.

Davis is not an outlier. Rather he is typical of the overwhelming consensus of historians that Wikid77 rails against. The views Wikid77 presents represent the extreme version of the Lost Cause. Of course both you and Wikid77 would know this if y'all in fact actually did (as you claim others haven't) "the harder work of looking at the sources." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is the kind of debate I prefer based on the sources. I never denied there are problems with what he said which is why I called it Neo-Confederate#Historical_revisionism, just as you do.

I did fact check his statement "the moderate legislators from Alabama and others decided not to banish free states as expelling states from the Confederacy if they emancipated slaves within a state ([2] p.105)".

Page 104-105 do say:

"Rhett still had an amendment in a play to expel any state that should abolish slavery [which failed because of moderates like Stephens]....The important point to Stephens and others in defeating an outright ban on free states was essentially public posture....The moderates like himself [Stephen] were clearly in the majority, men who saw safety in numbers and a temperate policy that looked outward. There was more to them than slavery."

These sentences somewhat support part of Wikid77's somewhat confusing sentence, but it is also directly contradicted by what is also in plain view on the same pages:

"The Deep South could be expected to stand firm on admitting only slave states...[by numbers and veto-power]" and "There would be no popular sovereignty to allow territorial governments to choose to become free states. Here as throughout, preservation of slavery was the driving force behind most of the variations from the Constitution of the United States."

There's no question he was cherry-picking and conveniently left out the material that disagreed with his claim, which is why I called it Neo-Confederate#Historical_revisionism.

But until now--after the filing and proposed site ban--no one bothered to show why his use of the source was wrong. Telling him simply to shut up is not a convincing argument against his position either to him or to anyone who shares similar beliefs. Slamming the argument with good WP:RS is the way to do it. So I thank you for doing that. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I also agree with Wnt, but I think we (people in general) are viewing this and other "rights" issues much too superficially. I was shocked when I saw this almost 20 years ago "You have zero privacy anyway," Scott McNealy told a group of reporters and analysts...."Get over it.". Shocked because he was confirming openly what I was already concluding but wondering whether I was just paranoid.

That was the end of most Americans' 4th amendment rights. Just 2 days ago I heard a Senator admit something much more troublesome about the risk of loss of the right to freedom for most Americans; here Senator Hatch at 1:07 says "you can make anything a crime under the current laws".

Re; freedom of speech, imo, Americans likely have never had much freedom of speech unless you agree with the crowd you are with and the current opinions of that particular crowd. Its gotten so bad now that even at Berkeley fringe speakers are banned. If you really want to know how bad it is and has been, the most credible and aware person I know immigrated from "behind the iron curtain" 50 years ago and she says she was floored by how much less freedom of speech most people have here and how much more brainwashed the people were here. What I think is the real issue is not how much of these freedoms citizens have but how selective those freedoms are applied. For example, we know Tariff Man has more freedom of speech than most of us when it comes to degrading women and still getting hired. And we know that Senator Hatch is less likely to get arrested for any of the made up crimes he speaks about than some poor soul pulled over with a broken tail light (just watch "Live PD" to confirm that), and then we have "hush" agreements, for people who can afford them, to selectively protect their privacy and keep their 100 million dollar a year job. Not so for the lowly mailroom guy who someone complains to HR about. So, the real problem here is the selectivity and degree to which citizens have rights depending, primarily, upon how much money or power they have. There is a solution to that problem, but no problem gets solved until its recognized. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Also +1 for Wnt. Wikid77 has said some things about race and slavery that I don't agree with personally, but it would be a shame if Wikipedia ended up like a modern university campus where people were not allowed to say anything that might be controversial. Wikid77 has been accused of spouting racist nonsense but this seems excessive. I would support a topic ban if Wikid77 is going to put his foot in his mouth over this issue, but I can't support a site ban on the basis of the evidence. Wikid77 needs to accept that not all African Americans in the old South were happy with the system and singing "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" like Uncle Remus in Song of the South. The fact that this film is not available in a home video format in the United States is an indication of how times have changed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. Wikid77 has repeatedly stated, in his own voice, white supremacist tropes such as the "Irish slaves" myth and Confederate apologia. It is fine to ask questions about these, and discuss them, on relevant article talk pages, but comingh here, as Wikid77 did, to assert that Wikipedia has a massive POV problem because it does not recognise these white supremacist tropes as fact, is a much more serious issue and indicates either that Wikid77 is a white supremacist, in which case he can get in the fucking sea, or, much more likely, he has lost the ability to critically evaluate sources pertaining to racist themes, in a climate where many so-called "conservative" outlets are now blatantly espousing white supremacism. I'd also note that Cullen328 is one of the kindest people I know. He is not given to capricious blocks. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A year ago today the Internet was destroyed.

• "[The] internet has been dying a slow death — and a vote next month by the Federal Communications Commission to undo net neutrality would be the final pillow in its face" " some form of net neutrality has been the governing regime on the internet since 2005. The new F.C.C. order would undo the idea completely; companies would be allowed to block or demand payment for certain traffic as they liked, as long as they disclosed the arrangements." --The New York Times (2017)

• "This is the end of the internet as we know it" .. "They will have the power to block websites, throttle services and censor online content. They will have the right to discriminate and favor the internet traffic of those companies with whom they have pay-for-play arrangements and the right to consign all others to a slow and bumpy road" --CNN (2017)

• "Ending net neutrality will destroy everything that makes the internet great. The internet without net neutrality will be a Wild West of extra fees and censorship. --NBC News (2017)

• "How the FCC’s Killing of Net Neutrality Will Ruin the Internet Forever" -GQ Magazine (2017)

So join me in mourning the Internet, killed by the FCC a year ago today.

And ignore those liars who publish trash like

U.S. internet speeds rose nearly 40 percent this year (December 2018)

and

4G speeds are on the rise once again in the U.S... In big cities like New York and Detroit we're measuring 4G connections in excess of 30 Mbps, an indication of network capabilities to come (July 2018)

And most certainly ignore those fools who think that maybe giving the same US government that runs the Postal Service and the VA hospitals -- and who have a long history of using that power to censor things they don't like -- control over the Internet isn't such a good idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Suicide

In September, I suggested that the Wikipedia article about "suicide" could offer help, such as phone numbers to prevention help lines. Jimbo Wales agreed - "In general, I think it's a good idea". Nothing has happened. This is a small change that could save lives.

Archive ref: [11] Suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)