Black Kite

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. 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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

RangerRus

Can you please take a look at what I added to the ANI thread.--v/r - TP 16:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Good points, and I agree. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Redacted comments

I don't think that this is the kind of thing that Template:Personal attack removed 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  But 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. SerialNumber54129 12:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Does your definition of "genuine racism" include practices that have an obvious Disparate impact? 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 explain 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 passive-aggressive acts of social exclusion", 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 Linguistic racism has to say, e.g., "Covert linguistic racism, on the other hand, is expressed through indirect and passive-aggressive acts of social exclusion. 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., Language revitalization efforts by Native Americans.)

  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 covert racism are genuine racism, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. Black Kite (talk) 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. Black Kite (talk) 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? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)