| Revision as of 00:24, 6 December 2024 editWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers122,167 edits →Redacted comments: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:45, 9 January 2025 edit undoMalcolmxl5 (talk | contribs)Administrators149,241 edits →Thomas Partey: Thanks.Tag: Reply |
| (38 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|counter = 96 |
|
|counter = 97 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Block == |
|
== '']'' arbitration case opened == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block with. All project ] (]) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
* Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. ] 11:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
<!-- Message sent by User:SilverLocust@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260341982 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RangerRus == |
|
== Thomas Partey == |
|
Can you please take a look at what I added to the ANI thread.--v/r - ]] 16:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
* Good points, and I agree. ] 22:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you have a look at the antics at ] please? The short story is that the police have been investigating allegations made about a Premier League player and a file has been passed to the CPS but neither have named the individual (and they can’t due to privacy rules regarding the identification of suspects) meaning any sources naming anyone are conjecture. We have a young editor persisting adding the accusations to the article and talk page who will not stop. They have a CTOP notification. — ] (]) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== Redacted comments == |
|
|
|
* {{u|Malcolmxl5}} Indefinitely blocked and every edit revision deleted. I've also semi-protected the article. Thanks, ] 21:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*:Thanks. — ] (]) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
I don't think that is the kind of thing that ] is meant to cover. When someone identifies a pattern of (in their eyes) racist behavior by a group of editors, we probably shouldn't call that a "personal attack". |
|
|
|
|
|
If you come from a place where "Anglo" means "non-Latino white American", then I can imagine that being quite jarring, but I don't think that was what was meant in this case. I think the non-native speaker meant that some native English speakers are making comments that denigrate non-native English speakers, and a little re-wording might be helpful. I wonder if you might consider self-reverting. ] (]) 23:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{u|WhatamIdoing}} Sorry, no - calling people racists is a personal attack, if you're doing it purely because you disagree with them; if there was genuine racism there then it would be a different situation; there isn't. ] 11:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:But {{blue|English is a universal language my friends, and not the property of colonial imperialists}} is a statement of opinion, not directed at anyone. Except colonial imperialists I suppose, but they can look after themselves. ]'']'' 12:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Does your definition of "genuine racism" include practices that have an obvious ]? Mine does. I suspect that editor's does, too. |
|
|
*:Does your definition of "genuine racism" include subtle racism? {{doi|10.1177/0011000015625329}} defines it this way: "Identifying contemporary racism has been problematic as this type of racism, namely subtle racism, is difficult to discern, and the actions in question can be easily justified by other causes". https://www.recurse.com/social-rules talks about "subtle -isms". They one of the practical consequences of subtle racism: "The “subtle” in “subtle -isms” means that it’s probably not obvious to everyone right away what was wrong with the comment." Some people, having experienced more of these "indirect and ] acts of ]", are quicker to notice racialized patterns of social exclusion. I think the editor was calling out subtle racism based on a common race+linguistic pair. |
|
|
*:You might also be interested in what ] has to say, e.g., "Covert linguistic racism, on the other hand, is expressed through indirect and ] acts of ].<ref name="TankosićDovchin2021">{{cite journal |last1=Tankosić |first1=Ana |last2=Dovchin |first2=Sender |date=7 April 2021 |title=(C)overt linguistic racism: Eastern-European background immigrant women in the Australian workplace |journal=Ethnicities |volume=23 |issue=5 |page=1–32 |doi=10.1177/14687968211005104 |issn=1468-7968 |eissn=1741-2706 |s2cid=233600585 |hdl-access=free |hdl=20.500.11937/91494}}</ref> In the U.S., covert linguistic racism plays a role in a lack of diverse participation..." |
|
|
*:I don't think it's difficult to understand the POV that the proposed LLM rules amount to an "indirect" act of "social exclusion" that will result in "a lack of diverse participation". These rules will especially affect people from East Asia, "based on an individual or community's linguistic background", to quote the opening line of our article, while "maintaining this social inequality under a veneer of indirectness and deniability", to quote the end of the first paragraph. The fact is that English is easier to learn if you come from a group whose common native language was Dutch or German than if your group's native language was Chinese or Japanese. Language is part of most people's racial identity. (Consider, e.g., ].) |
|
|
*:I personally see no ''overt'' racism in the discussion. But I also think the sentiment is not completely unreasonable, and I'm not comfortable saying that there is no "genuine racism" involved. "Contemporary" styles of ] are genuine racism, too. ] (]) 16:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::* Pointing out that some editors have used LLMs to create long talkpage posts because their own English skills are not good enough to do so is not racist, it's simply pointing out a fact which we have empirical evidence for. If people were suggesting that is a good reason to ban LLMs, or if they were saying that ''all'' LLM-generated posts were like that, then that would be different; but they're not. ] 19:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::*:Like I said, subtle racism isn't necessarily obvious at a first glance. Think about it. Maybe try to imagine a world in which the other editor isn't wrong. ] (]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::* I'm not sure where you're coming from here. The original discussion ''originated'' because we were having a large amount of LLM-generated posts on various noticeboards, and when the other edits of those editors was examined it was clear that their language skills were often not particularly great. That's not racism, or even subtle racism - it's simply pointing out a fact (and it was quite understood ''why'' those editors did this as well). On that basis "you Anglos you're all racist" (paraphrased obviously, but the meaning was clear) is simply nonsense. I have spent an ''enormous'' amount of time in my 17 years as an admin kicking racists, homophobes, misogynists and similar off this platform, I have a zero tolerance for it. But that also means that I have to point out the rare occasion when it works the other way. Shouting racism when it isn't there demeans those who point it out when it ''is'' there. ] 21:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*:So let's start with the assumption that the editor's personal English skills are lower than yours and mine. We might therefore decide that it's appropriate to give him some grace about the way that he phrased it. |
|
|
::::*:One possible reading of this assumed-to-be-imprecisely-worded phrase is "Everyone in this discussion is morally bad". That seems to be your interpretation. |
|
|
::::*:But I wonder whether the person meant to communication something like this: "I'm seeing ideas and behaviors (NB: not people) in this discussion that have unacknowledged racial content. For example, editors in this discussion note that LLMs are used by non-native English speakers, but then they vote to exclude those of us struggling with English (people who, worldwide, are mostly non-white) from discussions by banning the tools we need to participate! These exclusionary comments are coming from people with native-level English skills (people who, worldwide, are mostly white)." |
|
|
::::*:Can you imagine the possibility that this is what someone might be thinking, and just not have the skills to communicate it gently? ] (]) 00:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
