Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to "Redirect autopatrol list". After much-extended time for discussion, there is a solid consensus to move to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. BD2412 T 06:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist → Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect allowlist – Per the reasoning at mw:Inclusive language, I believe that "whitelist" should be changed to "allowlist" to be more inclusive with language. Other documentation and related pages should be updated too (I can do this if the RM is closed successfully), and the bot code needs updating as well (I can open a pull request). Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't "whitelist" consistent with most things like MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The name of the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist page is set by the SpamBlacklist MediaWiki extension and is therefore something under the control of the MediaWiki developers (there is an open task for renaming the extension at phab:T254649). This page, however, is used by a Wikipedia bot run by DannyS712; the only update to the bot that would be required if this page is moved (as far as I'm aware) is to change this line in the bot's source code (if the page does get moved, the <!-- DannyS712 bot III: whitelist start/end --> invisible comments the bot uses to find the start and end of the list should probably also get updated to remain consistent with the page title). GreenComputer (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @EpicPupper @GreenComputer thanks for the ping. The change is fine with me, but would need to be done in parallel with the bot updates (and the comments marking the start and end should likewise be updated at the same time). I propose that, if this RM is successful, instead of an admin moving the page directly, when I might not be around, the protection temporarily be lowered (to template editor) so that I can move and update the page at the same time as the bot updates. We can make it clear that the protection is temporary and only for this single purpose --DannyS712 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per EricPupper. GreenComputer (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support 力's suggestion of 'Rediect autopatrol list', as it has all the advantages of 'Redirect allowlist' (as outlined by EricPupper), with the additional advantage over "Redirect [allow/white]list" that it actually describes the purpose of the page. Support 'Redirect allowlist' as a second choice over the current title. GreenComputer (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PR opened; hopefully this'll make it easier to implement the change. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, and switching to a more obscure form of terminology that less editors will recognize does not assist in this process, particularly since the terms "whitelist" and "blacklist" are widely used on Wikipedia. Further, the controversy that this proposal is based on is disputed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing recognisability as a particularly big issue here; ultimately both the current and suggested titles don't actually tell you what the page is about if you don't already know (the first thing the phrase "redirect whitelist" brings to mind for me is a list of redirects that are allowed to be created or something). Just like they can now, editors will still be able to click on the link to find out what this page is about if they don't already know. GreenComputer (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think 力's suggestion of 'Rediect autopatrol list' improves on the recognisability of the title over both 'Redirect whitelist' and 'Redirect allowlist'. GreenComputer (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• mw:Inclusive language also says that "kill switch" is too violent and that "madam" and "sir" are "unnecessarily gendered language", the latter of which is an amusing way to be culturally insensitive in the name of some confused gesture in the direction of gender equality or trans/nonbinary inclusivity. I don't care what the WMF says is offensive. I care that editors have a safe, collegial editing environment. Are there editors of color who feel disinclined to contribute, or less welcome in this community, because we have pages titled "whitelist" and "blacklist"? If so, I would agree with a move proposal. But I don't like the idea of moving this just because some people in some places have said people should find the words offensive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: I agree that input from editors of colour would be ideal, although I don't know if there is any mechanism to explicitly solicit it (I obviously don't know if any of the editors who have already participated are editors of colour; I am not)? From what I remember from the discussion on the internet after the murder of George Floyd, there are some people who find it offensive, and some who don't. Much of the discussion centred around how whitelist and blacklist reinforce white is good, black is bad connotations (a quick search found this article by the academic Aradhna Krishna, in which she says Still, the color-goodness association is clearly a factor in racial prejudice). I based my support on their being some people who find the current title offensive, compared to no people finding the new title offensive. I'd also note it's not just the WMF who consider whitelist offensive (a quick search found NIST, CISCO, Google, Microsoft, Apple). For an observation of the connotations of white and black, I find this post to be worth a read. Ultimately, I'm basing my !vote on the information I currently have available to me. GreenComputer (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A nuance I'm trying to emphasize here is, it's not "offensiveness" per se that governs my feelings here. What matters to me is whether this makes people feel unwelcome. Humans in general, and geeks (such as Wikipedia editors) in particular have a tendency to view offensiveness as a bit of metadata that gets attached to a word and, like an "NSFW" tag on an image, means it should no longer be shown in certain contexts. I think that misses the point. Something is offensive if it offends. And since that can mean both offending someone's sensibilities (not that big a deal) and offending someone's dignity (a very big deal), that's why I'm asking if this is offending people's dignity, making them feel unwelcome, making them less inclined to contribute. If it is, I'm not going to second-guess someone's feelings. But I think it would be just as wrong for me to speak in support of moving this based just on accounts, often by people who are not Black, of what Black people want. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, when I used the word 'offensive' above, I was exclusively using it the later manner (offending someone's dignity) as opposed to the former. As to whether it makes people feel unwelcome, I agree that that is the key question. There are definitely some Black people who find the term 'whitelist' makes them feel unwelcome; a futher search brings up this article with a quote from the Alexis Hancock (a Black technologist who works at the EFF) who says [...] any change [such as not using blacklist/whitelist] that might make us [Black technologists] feel more comfortable overall in the field. I don't claim to know what percentage of Black people find the term offensive (to dignity), but there are definitely Black people pushing for this change in broader society. GreenComputer (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose per BilledMammal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "allowlist" is not accurate. Perhaps "redirect autopatrol list" would be possible. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support the latter, simply because it's a more consistent thing to call this than the rather ambiguous "whitelist". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative "redirect autopatrol list" per above. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 力's proposal to rename to Redirect autopatrol list. More precise title for the purpose this page serves. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 00:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to Redirect autopatrol list. ––FormalDude talk 01:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support moving to "Redirect autopatrol list", more descriptive title -- Ab207 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BilledMamal and Tamzin. --Spekkios (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "allowlist", Support "Redirect autopatrol list" casualdejekyll 20:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per 力. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support autopatrol list over allowlist. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 22:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess with respect to the problem with using "whitelist"/"blacklist" while WP generally follows external sites etc because WP appears prominently on the internet we may influence if people think such terminology is acceptable or not though I think this is likely to apply much less outside mainspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.