User:DesertInfo

Hello! I am mostly interested in fixing articles that have inaccuracies or omissions.

Union Dixie

Away down South in the land of traitors,
Rattlesnakes and alligators,
Right away, come away, right away, come away.
Where cotton's king and men are chattels,
Union boys will win the battles,
Right away, come away, right away, come away.

Then we'll all go down to Dixie,
Away, away,
Each Dixie boy must understand
That he must mind his Uncle Sam.

Policy Changes

Policy changes I believe would improve Wikipedia:

1. Stop topic banning racists. Racists shouldn't be allowed to edit period. If you talk about racism, you are at risk of being blocked. It is absurd that I can be banned for calling white nationalists racist. This lack of action hurts Wikipedia.

2. Stop allowing the confederate flag on userpages and userboxes. The ban should go beyond the Confederate Battle Flag and include flags like the former Flag of Mississippi or the current Flag of Georgia. It's a blatant dogwhistle. Confederate state flags were removed from the White House for good reason.

3. More outreach irl, Wikipedia is sorely lacking experienced editors.

Personal Essay - Ranting About Racism

Open racism is rampant on Wikipedia and it doesn't have to be. Admins do not enforce a no tolerance policy on racism. In fact, I have had admins and experienced users accuse me of supposed "anti-white" racism. I had an admin make up false reasons to block me when I brought up racism and then I was not given a chance to appeal. Oftentimes admins give out topic bans or temporary bans for being racist. I personally believe racism should be a permanent ban on the spot (while allowing for appeals in the future). There is a massive stigma against criticizing Wikipedia and/or talking about racism. I think Wikipedia is amazing but I also think it deserves a lot of criticism. There is so much potential for Wikipedia to take off in English speaking countries like South Africa and the Caribbean but systemic bias undermines the websites ability to really take off. There are massive disparities in coverage on this website, having active racists will only lead to bad outcomes.

Being anti-racist is being neutral. Always keep in mind WP:BIAS and WP:NONAZIS.

There is a growing white nationalist movement among South Africa's Afrikaner youth. There has been an active effort to downplay the racist parts of South Africa and instead focus on dogwhistles like "farm murders". Many articles about South Africa need to be reviewed and revised.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets

Other notes

WP:STONEWALLING is a good rule I don't see talked about very often.

Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change.

Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo), and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists.

When a substantive objection to a change exists, stonewalling is not required. So stonewalling is typically used when those opposed to the change don't actually have a substantive objection to the proposed change, or when they know whatever argument they have can be easily refuted, or is contrary to consensus.

Editors seeking to defend a status quo situation should refrain from employing the stonewalling tactics listed here, and instead follow the advice at WP:SQSAVOID.

Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior that is characterized by the use of tactics which obstruct, delay, prolong, or distract discussion from reaching consensus, usually when those opposing a proposal have few if any substantive arguments with which to support their position, and often when it appears that consensus supports, or is close to supporting, the change. While it's very difficult for one editor acting alone to succeed with stonewalling, if only 2 or 3 are involved, who don't even have to be coordinating their efforts, their ability to successfully build and maintain a stonewall retaining the status quo can be distressingly effective. With a few more editors it becomes even easier.

True consensus in a given situation is ideally measured and determined by the strength of the arguments presented, but often formal or informal polling is used as a substitute to determine consensus. So if enough people express objection to a change, that can be easily interpreted to be evidence of a lack of consensus in favor of the change. While that's probably usually an accurate assessment, if those opposed don't actually have substantive arguments supporting their objection, but those in favor of the objection do, there can actually be consensus in favor of the change when it appears that there isn't. Status quo stonewalling is about taking advantage of such a situation in order to prevent a change.