User talk:Black Kite/Archive 96

Hello, the account @Hydranova

This account which you partially blocked due to vandalism on the Ada and Aberen page has been cursing me and insulting me, and my "unborn children", calling me dumb and a miscreant, said "Ogun kpai..." which means Ogun kill you in pidgin English. This account is problematic.@Hydranova Dolpina (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Show proof 🤣🤣🤣 Hydranova (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The proof is in your editing history. Indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion by Potatoradishcarrot

Hi, I noticed that you indef blocked Potatoradishcarrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Nov 1. I believe that they are evading their block by editing on the IP 86.14.40.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), based on the IP's vandalism of the same articles previously vandalized by PRC, and the fact that the IP created Talk:Potatoradishcarrot which has the same title as the old user name. CodeTalker (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Dealt with, thanks for letting me know. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Please reply

Please reply in the talk page. Talk:2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence AmitKumarDatta180 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think DougWeller has replied saying exactly what I would have done. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Many thanks for your quick response. Could I request one more please, at [1]? Wikishovel (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wikishovel Done - thanks. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Your revert

There is a section in the t/p in which 2 editors expressed an objection to this paragraph-[2]. Including my own issues with it, that makes it 3 editors. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In light of this apparent consensus to not include that paragraph, could you please revert your edit? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit you made that Black Kite reverted was not a reflection of the discussion, though. In it, both DataCrusader1999 and myself agree that the article needs to be rewritten (bolding mine). To claim I said that a specific paragraph and only a specific paragraph should be removed is wrong. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs to be rewritten and that the highlighted paragraph about a diplomatic row is undue weight for the lead section of a BLP article. In fact, I feel more strongly than ever that either the scope of this article needs to change, or that content regarding the diplomatic row should be split. This what you said on October 15, one day after this version of the article-[3].

And this is what DataCrusader said: The below paragraph should be mentioned in the diplomatic-fallout section. under the section title change in lede of the article. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

...but you removed the content, you did not move it. I said rewrite not delete. Stop twisting my words now. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favour of moving/reinstating that paragraph to the Criminal Investigation/Diplomatic fallout section? Is that something we can both agree on? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Warnings, blocks, and overriding judgement

That thread is already going to be bad enough without adding this tangent, so I'll bring it here. Your judgement was still that a block wasn't necessary in that situation, and although you did say another admin could block it would still be overriding your judgement in that case. I didn't feel so strongly that you were wrong in this instance that I'd take another action, just said it's not the action I would have taken. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This also might add a bit of context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish Fair enough. You may also note Explicit's comment on his talk page in reply to me. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That was part of it too, as I'm familiar with and know people who use get off my dick or get off my nuts in a non-sexual way, but I still think it is wildly inappropriate. I don't see it as a heteronormative issue as much as a sexualization of commentary to attack another editor issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverted content

Hey, you reverted content on Fortnite Festival that I added. Why? ImagineDragonsFan101 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• (1) It wasn't sourced - see WP:V. (2) You kept repeatedly adding it - see WP:3RR. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Tomorrow I’ll source it and re-add it after the 24 Hour period. Thank you. ImagineDragonsFan101 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Administrator Review

Hello, I kindly request administrative review of the ongoing content dispute on the Shahi Jama Masjid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. This matter is particularly sensitive due to current incidents (2024 Sambhal violence) surrounding the site, Which caused 5/6 deaths.

The user Upd Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made edits asserting that the mosque was built over a Hindu temple, citing certain historical books (not freely accessible) and Indian media sources. However, the reliability of these sources are questionable. Additionally the issue is further complicated by the following factors:

• Hindu petitioners lack historical evidence to substantiate their claims and so they have demanded a 'survey' of the mosque. This suggests that the citations provided by the user is not trustworthy.
  
• The applicability of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1904 and Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits altering the character of places of worship.
• The potential risk of misleading readers by including speculative pre-Islamic claims without proper verifiability.

Moreover, the user Upd Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be acting intentionally disruptive, as their contributions are solely focused on this article. Despite multiple reverts by other editors, they continue to persist, causing significant disruption.
1. Moved page to wrong title
2. reverted
3. reverted
4. reverted
5. reverted …

While attempting to preserve the article’s integrity, I inadvertently breached the WP:3RR rule.
It should also be noted that Upd Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted edits of 4 individual users more than 5 times prior to this.

Another user, Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has also been involved in the dispute. But, I have concerns about their neutrality due to the content on their userpage indicating their religious affiliation. This raises questions about potential bias in their approach. - (Personal opinion)

Given the complexity and sensitivity of this matter, I believe administrative oversight is necessary to ensure neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia's policies.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your insights. - Cerium4B • Talk? • 15:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Till a day ago, your user page claimed your name to be "Abrar", a Muslim name. Let's say that it would have been bigoted of me to claim that you are biased because you are ...

All the books that I cited are available online and at Libgen / IA. If you feel that my sources are unreliable (they are not), why not discuss at the talk page despite multiple requests (1, 2, 3, and 4)?

Of the four editors, CipherRephic had mistakenly rollbacked my edits (per their own admission) and Jannatulbaqi had no issue with my edits except the move (again, per their own admission). That leaves two: you and another editor who never showed up at the talk-page like you.

On an aside, Indian legislation does not determine how our articles are written; Wikipedia policies do. If you believe that the claims in the article are unverifiable or not supported by reliable sources, you are free to discuss at the talk-page. Additionally, I did not make edits "asserting that the mosque was built over a Hindu temple"; I added the entire spectrum of views espoused by reliable scholars incl. those of Howard Crane who held that no temple existed at the site. Upd Edit (talk) 16:57, 1 December 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)