Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125

• Nyxaros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At

 Comment: "That's sad for you" is in response to the user that stated that what I think is "stupid" and if I think that I should be "topic banned" from film articles. I've already talked about that on WikiProject Video game articles discussion where you continued to prolong this issue about my talk page history insted of talking about the problems of Ada Wong page. "That's sad for you" is the only recent reply among the ones you name it as "uncivil" as others happened long ago. I have already admitted that I was wrong for "Had the audacity to send a message without even knowing how to write an article." from two years ago was bad on my part. Instead of improving the article, you are bringing messages from the past and wasting everyone's time. It seems my talk page history is more important for you than improving any article. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not dealt with Nyxaros besides the Video Game Wikiproject talk page, but there is clearly a

WP:NOTHERE issue. Even as Nyxaros is claiming they did nothing wrong, they are still being insulting to other editors in real time. Example is "get over it" as a response to another editor's comment on their actions. Their talk page shows they consistently deleted legitimate issues brought up by other editors sans response. Being unable to take criticism from others is detrimental to building an encyclopedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ

) 20:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:STICK. If you think these two pages are "insult"ing, you can discuss about them elsewhere. "Legitimate issues" that you are claiming have been all resolved. ภץאคгöร

08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Right before that, you had also linked "mind your own business". Wikipedia is a community, not a solo endeavor. If numerous people found your actions deleterious enough to discuss, maybe start soul searching instead of lashing out at people for butting into "your" business. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BUTTOUT ("mind your own business") is insulting, you should discuss it on another talk page. ภץאคгöร

11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You certainly have interesting ideas on what isn't an insult. "Get over it", "butt out" etc. are inherently rude quips that would make someone insulted both in private and in public. It may be you aren't socially aware of this for some reason, but that doesn't change it being unfit for Wikipedia.

Competence (in being able to interact properly) is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ

) 15:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Responding to the ping, I'm a relative outsider here, having not had direct interaction with Nyxaros. I have seen the stuff presented above, and been observing the WikiProject discussion. My opinion is that their editorial tone displays a stubborn refusal to take part in reasonable discussions and a passive-aggressive stance that is potentially damaging to editors and to the website. A bit that stood out was in a reply, where their edit summary was "really sad", which seems like a red flag to me given the discussion's context. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Yes, I genuinely think it is really sad that instead of improving the aforementioned article, editors presented so-called "uncivil" edit summaries from me years ago and try to make it relevant to now and that page. I don't know why finding such a situation sad (or upsetting, or frustrating) is considered a red flag. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The point being raised here is to do with conciliatory and civil attitude and tone. Which, given recent comments, is something you lack in both historic and contemporary interactions. I may have feelings of irritation over some thing or feel a close connection to pages, but I try not to use frequent quote marks and edit summaries that take on the tone of personal attacks. Looking at this and other responses, I feel that some kind of block is necessary for all sides. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block per above. Nyxaros' failure to respect
  WP:NOTHERE territory. Every interaction I've had with this editor has been unpleasant, to say the least. Will point out that when I was in a dispute with Nyxaros at The Suicide Squad (film) in 2021 (discussion here), in which they faced unanimous opposition but continued to edit war anyway, I wasn't the only one who thought their behavior was ANI-worthy.) JOEBRO⁶⁴
  20:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at your incident has shown me more problematic behavior they have committed in the past: They edited an essay to better suit their argument in an unrelated discussion.[4][5] That may not be against any rules, but is definitely a red flag. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia." ภץאคгöร

08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support of indef block. It's kind of hard to believe that they've been here for so long, acting as they've done. Take for instance this. Removing a standard notice about adding an incorrect image, calling
  Competence is required and they utterly fail to be a competent civil editor. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK}
  20:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: You have called me "uncivil troll" and "troll-ish", while taking quotes (some of them out of context) such as "This message and the edit summary is not a pleasant read, especially in terms of grammar." and calling them "undeservedly rude". Replies from months ago is not helping to this discussion, but your behaviour and stance against me is definitely rude. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Your point-by-point reply to everyone commenting is again

WP:SPADE, I call an uncivil troll an uncivil troll (as in troll (slang). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK}

12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOSPADE, and you are still required to be reasonably civil. Calling someone "troll" over and over doesn't help to resolve this discussion as everyone can clearly understand your thoughts. ภץאคгöร

19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• For the record, I didn't write anything "uncivil" to anyone recently. On the contrary, I received responses that say I don't know what I am doing for 11 years, I am supposed to get their "consent" for my edits (expecting me
  I have a "serious problem", I am "uncivil troll" and my "normal behaviour" includes "troll-ish" actions. They opened Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games section to talk about the past and accuse me instead of talking about the problems and the edits on the Ada Wong page which has had intensive IP activity lately. Blame is attributed to me (as in my responses 2 years ago, which started with "Had the audacity..." and I already I was wrong at that time), but they see the right to make an uncivil attack on the person they accuse. Trying to reopen discussions that have been closed for a long time by linking them here, instead of constructively criticizing and discussing the Ada Wong article and my edit summaries, they found it appropriate to attack me in the style of "you had this wrong, you are troll" and in some cases, to misrepresent the past resolved situations. If they had taken steps to help the article, the issues would probably have been resolved by now. ภץאคгöร
  08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the issue is with you and your attitude towards your fellow editors. But I guess you

WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT?. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK}

12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Their replies to this thread really exemplify their problems. If several established editors, most of whom have little to no interactions with me in the past, raise concerns about my edits, and no editor has defended me, I would want to have a discussion about what I seemed to be doing wrong, which is not what they're doing here. They seem to not understand the difference between calling out problematic behavior (something that we're encouraged to do) and personal attacks. Their comments that even having this discussion is a waste of time that should be spent editing articles shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Despite responding to every comment in this discussion, they have not addressed their behavior on their talk page, which has raised many concerns. I definitely feel that they need to be indefinitely blocked untill they're able to demonstrate that they realize the problems with their behavior. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not want to vote on whether we should ban him or not, but I would like to say that my experience interacting with this editor has also been unpleasant. He often uses edit summary to make snarky comments about other editors, which is highly inappropriate. This edit summary in particularly shows how hypocritical he is when he also left comments like these [6] and [7]. I also want to point out that there is another discussion about this editor's behaviour in the past as well. OceanHok (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Of course everyone should call out problematic behaviour, but is it really relevant to now? All you're doing is trying to revive long-dead debates ("problems", "edit summaries") that do not reflect the reality of now by taking some of them out of context. My edit summaries, "uncivil" or not, has nothing to do with now. So I don't quite understand the purpose of your repetitive comments just to argue and punish me, and don't see the point of getting an editor banned for past activities especially if most people actually forgave and forgot. A month ago an admin called me "stupid" and at the end, we were somewhat able to find common ground on the article and improved it instead of talking about rude behaviour and heating the argument for days. I didn't care much about it then and definitely don't now because both parties moved on because everyone makes mistakes. For this reason, I remind that I think it would be more ideal to spend the effort spent in this discussion on the page in question in order to improve the encyclopedia. That's just my opinion. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

PS. I do not know anyone here, and I collaborated with a very few editors here and there. I don't expect anyone to make a defense and I don't know why a defense should be made or how editing summaries can be defended as they are often open to interpretation for everyone. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like your comments being scrutinized, maybe change your attitude, huh? The point of looking up your old comments is to show it's a consistent pattern, not just an incident or two. I also just noticed, Nyxaros was blocked twice in 2019. "...for repeated violations of WP:CIVIL" (

WP:CIVIL) - no suprise there I suppose. In June last year, Tintor2 tried talking to you. Your response: not taking the time to properly reply, but reverting to an earlier revision and leaving "You are not using quotes and being "repetitive", not me" as an edit summary. If that's also too old for your taste, your snarky (or "troll-ish", if you will) edit summary "that's sad for you" reacting to NinjaRobotPirate

was a little over three weeks ago.

At no point have you taken responsibility for your words and actions, not then and not now. Instead of talking this through, or heaven forbid, you apologising to another, you're suggesting we go improve Wikipedia instead. But you seem to forget (ignore?) that fundamentally, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As your many instances of arguments and warnings show, working together is something you seem incapable of. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I didn't write anything about not liking my comments "being scrutinized" anywhere. Another misleading thing about my comments. NinjaRobotPirate's incident was already explained above (and on the WikiProject Video games section before), which is the one with "stupid". I clearly do not get your point (and do not actually care at this point as this discussion became a strange loop and a vicious circle than anything else) even though I explain the incident clearly you still try to come up with your own version of things for the long-dead edit summary incidents as someone who was not even involved in them. ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess one of the problems is that while you don't rememeber us, sadly we remember you and your behaviours, and how your edit summaries, while "open to interpretation for everyone", offended most people. I can forgive and forget if you are actually a changed person, but that is not the case (obviously). Through these discussions, we realize now that these are not singular incidents. You have always been rude and uncollaborative, both in the past and present, ultimately suggesting that

you are not here to build an encyclopedia. OceanHok (talk

) 06:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: "We" is not "most people", is it? You are taking your time to write paragraphs here, saying same things and trying to create different interpretations even though I explain them and most people just do not care enough to join this discussion as they have better things to do. There is literally not single evidence of showing my "rude and uncollaborative" behaviour now. I'm going to write it hopefully one last time that the last issue that is somewhat related to this discussion happened almost a month ago when an admin called me "stupid" and wrote that I should be "topic banned from film articles" becuse I wrote "rotten" doesn't mean "negative", and I replied "That's sad for you", which I thought was really upsetting and sad. Instead of arguing, both parties edited the page and moved on. Simple as that. (One minor point, by the way: it's unrealistic to expect anyone in any condition, anywhere in life, to magically "change" for anything all of a sudden.) ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree it's unrealistic to change all of a sudden. But it's been years. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

My stance was originally more neutral, but if you're seemingly implying that you can't change your ways, when the complaints here are about you being uncivil and unpleasant on a collaborative project, well, that's harder to overlook. Do you really find it so difficult to just be nice to other people? Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: It is not my intention to make any insinuation. I no longer wish to respond to what I think has turned into another (inconvenient/ill-founded) embodiment of the "I like pancakes." "So you hate waffles?" argument and is therefore protracted, as I think I have already made myself clear enough in the messages above. ภץאคгöร 16:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• He was warned over using misleading edit summary over this same article just last month[15] over the same edit that he is still repeating.[16][17] Some sanction is clearly needed. Dympies (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I see that
  Talk:Shaikhs in South Asia is nearly virginal, so I'm surprised that we're here already. This looks to me like a dispute about the reliability of certain sources in one particular article. I think your first response should be to demonstrate that the sources are reliable, using the talk page I linked rather than AN/I.—S Marshall T/C
  08:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misrepresentation of sources even after being told about it in edit summaries at least deserves a deeper look on this noticeboard. Also, a response from the reported user should be read before deeming this to be a content dispute. Dympies (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Use. The. Talk. Page.

  If you had used the talk page before coming here you would be in a very strong position. This previous incident shows that this user has a history of failing to engage on talk pages, so a sanction on them would have been quite a likely outcome if you had done that. But at the moment all you have to show is this user removing content with an edit summary challenging the credibility of the source, and without more, that is not sanctionable misconduct.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: I think you are confusing me here with the OP. I am not the one who filed the report. While I understand your approach, we are seeing people justifying blocks over far smaller offense in above sections. The information is supported by the mentioned sources. Check it. Now when the reported editor has engaged in edit warring and misrepresentation of sources even after warning, then a sanction should be requested too. Dympies (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I was using "you" in the plural, to refer to the OP and those who agree with them. I'm sorry if that usage caused any confusion. I think the circumstances in the other case to which you refer are entirely different.—S Marshall T/C 15:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  I had previously attempted to warn them about misleading edit summaries, but they dismissed it. This behavior is not limited to

  Shaikhs of South Asia, but at Jinnah family ([18]) the user has summarily dismissed a reliable, well published, on-topic source with no explanation. Another example on another page of blatant removal of sourced content with a misleading edit summary is here [19], even though the source clearly supports the content "for zina to be unjustified due to the difficulty of establishing the crime according to to the requirements in the Qur'an, which states four eye witnesses of sound mind and upright character are needed to prove zina." Another example can be found here [20], despite sources "he was married to the daughter of a Turk" and "The Spanish traveler, Pero Tafur, wrote that in 1438, at the time of his visit to the Trapezuntine court, Ioannes IV was married to “a daughter of a Turk” (Letts, 1926,p.131) and Kuršankis (1976, pp.124-125) suggests that she was probably a daughter or sister of one of the khans of Salkhat, most likely either Hajji Girey or Devlet Berdi." Chariotrider555 (talk

  ) 17:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

User 2600:1702:3650:9050:88E3:9399:5608:8A92 (talk · contribs), with no edits before today, has replaced the entire lead in eight biographical articles of French statesmen or politicians in 28 minutes. Maybe we need to welcome them with a special barnstar created for the occasion, and instant adminship! Or, could it be...<spooky font>Chat GPT?</spooky font>

IP replaced the lead of Charles de Gaulle on 7 April at 01:52 (diff). In my opinion, (read: "I have not the slightest effing tiny little doubt in my mind") these have all been generated by Chat GPT. (I've been experimenting a fair bit, and I recognize the style pretty easily, now.) The CDG lead is pretty good, but it doesn't necessarily summarize the most important points in the body of the article, and I'm not convinced everything in it is already covered in more detail in the lead, where references can be found.

I've raised a discussion at Talk:Charles de Gaulle#Replacement of the entire lead on 6 April by IP user via LLM, reverted IP's edit at the CDG article, and reverted several other of their edits (as have Manticore and Galobtter; thanks!):

(So far, nothing else of interest in 2600:1702:3650:9050:0:0:0:0/64.)

Finally, the larger issue of LLM use at WP is an unsettled one at Wikipedia, and I'm aware of the growing body of discussion both here and elsewhere about it (see the tip of the iceberg

For starters, a question: I plan to revert any edit by this user that smells of LLM to me, and I'm getting pretty good at spotting it, but that's a pretty iffy reason, policy-wise. I trust myself, but you don't necessarily need to agree, and if there's a good reason not to follow my plan, please weigh in. The more important question, of course, is the more general one. This may also be of interest to @Fuzheado, CactiStaccingCrane, and Mztourist:; feel free to add others. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I entirely agree with User:Mathglot's position. Mztourist (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I read two of them, Charles de Gaulle and Nicolas Sarkozy. These edits are summarizing the summary and significant introductory content is lost from the leads. This is automated dumbing down and a clear degradation of our content. I favor an immediate indefinite block from article space for any editor who pulls a stunt like this. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hear hear! I looked at what happened to Mitterrand: replacement of nearly all the factual summary by bland grammatically-correct blurb that could have been written about anyone from the pope to the florist at the end of my street, the sort of deceptively-correct cosmetic-English that AI is good at producing. There is no way it was an improvement; there is no way AI can improve in a situation like this, as it must either summarise (which had already been done) or look beyond the text (in which case it needs to support itself with referencing like any other editor). But fundamentally, if a person is capable of writing half-way decent English they don't need AI to rewrite leads, and if they aren't capable of writing half-way decent English, they can't assess the AI's writing. And we need honesty from our editors: if they cannot admit they aren't a human, what editorial ethics do they have? Elemimele (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

A-Admit I'm not a human?... I'm definitely a human, beep boop. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet another reason to ban all LLM use on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this definitely furthers the case for banning LLM use on Wikipedia. Even though the edits were fairly obviously detrimental, and completely changed the leads of high profile leads, they still took hours to revert - I can only imagine how much easier it would be sneak in referenced content that looks perfectly reasonable but is totally made up/full of AI hallucinations and factual inaccuracies.

talk

) 07:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Banning LLMs might be useful in dissuading already established editors from using them, but what would that do when it comes to IPs like this one? They're not exactly well-versed with our policies, and most don't care to be. PopoDameron ⁠talk 10:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW: based on their editing history, this editor is clearly User:President of Switzerland. They were blocked for 31 hours last month, see User talk:2600:1702:3650:9050:E969:B1EA:947:E5C5. This recent attempt at “summarization” involved replacing the intro with verbatim quotes from the body. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm less worried about the lead rewrites, which are not too hard to spot, than with the ability to fake sources, or to generate fiction with real sources. Consider this snippet for example, and tell me what you see:

Clotharperic was a Frankish king who reigned over a kingdom that covered much of modern-day France and Germany in the late 6th century.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wood, Ian |title=The Merovingian Kingdoms: 450-751 |publisher=Pearson |location=Harlow |date=1994 }}</ref> He was the son of King Clotaire I, and upon his father's death, he inherited a significant portion of the Frankish kingdom.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. |title=The Long-Haired Kings, and Other Studies in Frankish History |publisher=Methuen |location=London |date=1962 }}</ref> Clotharperic was known for his military conquests, having expanded his kingdom's borders through successful campaigns against neighboring peoples.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wood, Ian |title=The Merovingian Kingdoms: 450-751 |publisher=Pearson |location=Harlow |date=1994 }}</ref> He was also a patron of the arts, and under his reign, many magnificent works of art and literature were created.<ref>{{cite book |author=James, Edward |title=The Franks |publisher=Blackwell |location=Oxford |date=1988 }}</ref> Despite his successes, Clotharperic was not without his detractors, and his reign was marked by political turmoil and assassination attempts.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wood, Ian |title=The Merovingian Kingdoms: 450-751 |publisher=Pearson |location=Harlow |date=1994 }}</ref> Nevertheless, he remains a significant figure in Frankish history, and his legacy continues to be studied and debated by historians today.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. |title=The Long-Haired Kings, and Other Studies in Frankish History |publisher=Methuen |location=London |date=1962 }}</ref>

Chat GPT turned the tables on me, because I was expecting a mix of real and faked references, as I've mostly seen in the past, but these are all real (usually I ask for a lot more than one paragraph, so maybe that's why). The interesting thing here, is that king Clotharperic is a figment of my imagination (zero hits in Google, but that may change by the time you read this ), and Chat GPT "sourced" it anyway with real references. If I had picked a real king, and the bot gave real references, who is going to check them? This is what really worries me, because if an editor doesn't identify bot usage in an edit summary, I just don't know how we're going to discover it. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You may be interested in

WP:ANI#Suspected hoax content and LLM use by User:Gyan.Know. Which was about ChatGPT and fake referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 10:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Footnote 1: One alternate solution is to outright ban IP editing on Wikipedia as a result of the heightened risk of LLM-editing created by having such a wide attack vector, but I don't see this happening ever, and certainly not for this reason. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been advocating that for years, but no matter how much evidence and argumentation is put forward that doing so would be beneficial to the project, it doesn't seem as if it's ever going to fly here, unfortunately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Detection is definitely a big problem. But I think a "no LLM editing" policy would at least make sure that good faith users know not to use LLMs to generate text for articles - and we have always relied on there being a lot more good-faith editors than malicious ones. Right now I'm seeing a wishy-washy approach from the community (at least the one that is outlined at

WP:LLM

) that doesn't seem to acknowledge the risks involved, and seems to think that humans are actually going to meaningfully verify what the LLM writes (which would take longer than writing the text by yourself).

(as a side note, I just saw this article about how ChatGPT invented a sexual harassment case against a professor - scary stuff.)

talk

) 18:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think an expression of collective outrage could be a good thing. If the unethical products of a toxic industry are going to drag down our attempt to use the Internet to educate humankind, we might as well be angry about it.

talk

) 19:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

And yes,

talk

) 19:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I'd say almost by definition those using LLMs to create content are those least likely to (or to even be capable of) double check the content. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I once uncovered a decade-old

The ultimate answer to that may wind up being significantly tightening the minimum requirements for article creation. Not at all what most veterans would prefer, and not within the scope of ANI -- that'd be a site-wide RfC -- but this is downright an existential threat to the encyclopedia. All we need is for the media to start trumpeting how Wikipedia's being written by chatbots, and the encyclopedia's credibility is gone for good. Ravenswing 01:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a copy, but from memory More Random Walks in Science ed. R. L. Weber (1982) contains two fictional biographies which made their way into a printed encyclopedia.or compendium, whose editors adopted a very stuffy attitude when they found out they'd been taken in (compare the

torsion balance). They were very obviously practical jokes to anyone who actually read what they said, rather than being written to deceive. Narky Blert (talk

) 06:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:VPP as a venue? Mathglot (talk

) 11:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly where it should start, I believe. Ravenswing 13:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to contribute; feel free to {{

ping}} me. Narky Blert (talk

) 17:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, please also ping me. But – but – I know we'll be backing a losing cause when it comes to consensus. At my last unscientific check, ⅓ of editors who expressed an opinion don't think that AI/LLM is a problem at all, ⅓ of editors think AI/LLM is useful, and ⅓ of editors wish the issue would go away until they've had time to think about it properly. Add that to the current 60:40 inclusionist:deletionist ratio and we're on a hiding to nowhere. Nevertheless, even some doomed battles are worth fighting. — Trey Maturin™ 18:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's much too pessimistic, especially as pro-ban editors are more likely to comment than anti-banners, and the issue has received a lot of publicity recently. We also need a process for reverting suspected AI additions. Do the sites produce the same content when asked twice? Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's received a lot of publicity recently, but we've still, on this page right now alone, had two otherwise unobjectionable established editors go to ChatGPT, type in a question, post the answer to a new article here and then not understand at all in any way why this was a problem – despite the disclaimers and the publicity and the news articles and everything else. They thought a chatbot was 100% spot-on Wikipedia material. And then a third of the people responding to this had no problem with this but were unhappy with the editors being blocked from mainspace because they meant well. We're on a hiding to nothing in trying to get consensus. Even the no-AI-please warning templates ({{uw-ai1}} etc) got pushback from established editors saying that this "deletion on sight" policy was bad and they would prove so by posting AI/LLM articles to mainspace themselves. — Trey Maturin™ 19:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod They shouldn't, no. They will tend towards producing similar content, but unless they start caching ChatGPT and BingChat answers for popular questions (I don't believe they do this, but perhaps I am wrong, in which case I would appreciate being corrected!), the answers are newly generated each time. Using specific phrases in "prompt hacking" can duplicate weird hacks to a certain extent, but not typically exactly. -- asilvering (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Which makes it a thousand times harder because it means there's no common phrases or giveaways we can use to filter out the AI-written content (yet, anyway; if we're lucky there's certain word strings that the AI likes to use that might make it possible to flag its writing, but I suspect we would need a lot more data to see if that's how it works.) StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if we find some strings that current models are more likely to output, within a couple of years there'll be completely different models that don't behave the same way, so it would be a very temporary solution. PopoDameron ⁠talk 02:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

At this rate, it's more like "within a couple of months". -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Editor MVM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is constantly adding promotional/glorifying content to articles related to Nair Service Society, despite multiple warnings.

jojo@nthony (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Editor MVM also moved an article in order to add honorifics to the title. MVM hasn't responded to any of the messages on their talk page. Perhaps an admin could block them from article space until this editor engages in discussion? Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked from articlespace until they start engaging. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit late to point this out but for the record, the editor in question has still not been notified about this discussion. I've notified them. Something something big red box something something Burma Shave. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone, or multiple people seem to have a desire to create a Wikipedia article about the Bihar Engineering University in Patna.

There's currently 2 duplicates at

It appears that

I'm not an expert of sockpuppetry or editors who are determined to create an article, despite all opposition, so I'm asking for advice from admin(s).  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 14:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

paid editing. It all comes with the territory, I'm afraid. Thanks for watching, CityUrbanism. If you should happen on more versions, feel free to contact me directly. Bishonen | tålk

13:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC).

Please see: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:47.232.88.19" at the bottom. Can someone please tell me if this guy is right and not just out to get me and if he is right specifically why he is right? He just posts links to entire articles as an explanation but not what part of it he thinks I am not following. Totally unfair and uncool. As far as I know I am totally within the rules here and I was totally on topic. I was literally agreeing with something someone else wrote on there and my comment was basically similar to another comment posted there but that guy got to keep his comment and I was not. This is totally unfair! And then he gets cross with me when I ask for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.232.88.19 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, sorry if wrong place to complain, please let me know where to file the complaint if this is wrong place. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

People just love taking me to ANI You've failed to notify me of this discussion per the bright red notice at the top. While that's technically moot now since I'm aware of this discussion it's still something you should do. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I did. Read the comments at the bottom of the thing. I told you that I posted it here and even provided a link 47.232.88.19 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually read it a bit more carefully. The notice says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.". You did no such thing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I did! Look at my talk page where you were scolding me. I directly replied to you with a link! 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How about I actually bold the relevant part for you. "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." Not the person who is reporting's talk page, the user who is being reported's talk page. You never gave me any notice on my talk page. In fact, I didn't have any talk page notice regarding ANI today until User:Tails Wx came along and added it (only to revert themself since I was already aware). I think you need to take some time and read things completely so you actually understand what you are being told. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on. Cut me a break. Clearly I was trying to notify you, but apparently misunderstood the word editor to mean myself. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you not read what Blaze stated? When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Pings aren't sufficient, see this discussion. Tails Wx 18:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the IP understands that, judging by what they're saying --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mk. Just a clarification, to the IP, I'm sorry if I was a bit bite-y. Tails Wx 19:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The difference between

problem solving

16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this characteriazation. I was basically repeating what he said. IT wasn't even my own opinion. I was seconding someone else's. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And the page actually still says he identifies as a nazi. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait. If a topic is still kept up does that mean it could still have possibly been solved? I thought it meant it was still an open discussion. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

While a discussion that hasn't been closed properly (via the various methods at

necroposting, tho I myself don't see it as very constructive depending on how long ago the last reply was) so long as it isn't actually closed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk

_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes,

WP:NOTFORUM Catfish Jim

and the soapdish 16:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, but they've already "skimmed" that page, and their takeaway from it was that random forum-like comments are fine and tu quoque is a valid position to argue from. So that's us told. — Trey Maturin™ 16:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• The IP is apparently unaware that the official WP position is "new editors can fuck right off". I'm sorry you went through this, IP. There are a lot of smug editors here who enjoy throwing their weight around, because they're too cowardly to quote "NOTAFORUM" to User:ScottishFinnishRadish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! And you were the person I was agreeing with by the way. But apparently me posting that I second your opinion is against some as of yet unknown rule. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I believe this was intended as sarcasm. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am NOT being sarcastic. Sorry if it came across like that, but I was not being sarcastic. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not referring to your comment. I'm referring to User:Floquenbeam's. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hey but while you are here, can you actually explain, withOUT getting cross with me, why others who had similar comments were given a pass, but for me my first comment was immediately flagged and removed? You referenced a bunch of article on policy, but did not actually mention which part of those articles you thought I was in breach of. From what I read, I think I am within the rules. Also, I've recently encountered something called wikilawyering. I think that this whole thing counts as lawyering. A small comment being attacked with this much force? I mean I feel like you are basically telling me that I just can't participate period if I have to second guess every single thing I have to say. I wasn't disrespectful at all and was totally on topic! 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Blaze Wolf: It was sarcasm in the sense that we probably shouldn't act like new editors can fuck right off, but it was serious about you doing an extremely poor job of interacting with this editor, and Catfish Jim and Trey Maturin didn't help either. If someone had told the IP editor what ONUnicorn took the time to tell them, above, I doubt we'd be where we are now. Just because the comment wasn't helpful doesn't mean we need to edit war with them and then refuse to explain. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The IP was referred to the policy page in question, agreed that they had read it (and then said they'd skimmed it) and what they took away from reading/skimming the page was that they were right and should head to a drama board and attempt to get sanctions against the person who pointed them to the page. I'm sure we can simplify most of our policy pages down to a single paragraph in order to make them graspable, but should we? — Trey Maturin™ 18:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Pretend you don't know much about WP. Now follow this link:

  WP:NOT; a giant, sprawling catch-all page. The fact that it links to a specific section of that page is not obvious to a new editor; you have to know what the shortcut box means, and you have to know to look at the right margin to see it, you have to know how it applies to your situation. The section in question isn't highlighted, it's just floating there mid-page. Add to that the fact that, frankly, this is an edge case of NOTFORUM at best; you could make a case that it applies, and a case that it doesn't apply. It's OK to link to NOTFORUM at first, because there are only so many hours in the day. But when the IP politely said they didn't understand, they got nothing but attitude. We see hundreds - probably thousands - of comments like the IP's comment every day, many by more experienced accounts, and many actively harmful, instead of this harmless "me too" comment. Personally, I think it harms WP more than it helps to remove a harmless comment like this. I don't know why Malerooster chose to revert this particular comment, but at least they were polite about it and left a welcome template. I really don't know why Blaze Wolf chose to edit war with the IP about this one, and answered with more useless bluelinks and templated warnings. Established editors forget to notify people every day, but we're spending multiple paragraphs yelling at the IP they didn't do it. The IP did not ask for a sanction, but you're righteously indignant, convinced that they did. This is all just an example of the smug "new editors, especially IP editors, can fuck right off" attitude you're displaying. Floquenbeam (talk

  ) 19:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  That last sentence is unworthy of you, Floq. — Trey Maturin™ 19:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  OK, struck, but that was like 5% of my post. And rude or not, unwise to say out loud or not, it is honestly how I feel about the response here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I was a bit short and shouldn't have answered the question as put, as a binary choice (I agree, it did come across a bit

  WP:BITEY). I doubt Blaze Wolf is just out to get the IP. I would be happy to offer some mentorship to the IP. Catfish Jim

  and the soapdish 18:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh wait. I thought Scottish was the guy who wrote this comment. Scottish was the guy I was agreeing with. But still thanks regardless. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like we have a
  WP:BITE problem here. IP47 was mistaken about how Wikipedia talkpages work, but instead of having it explained to them they were reverted and templated. I don't really blame BlazeWolf in this circumstance, I'm sure that page gets a lot of nonsense. But we should try to remember that West's page is probably a magnet for new editors especially now, and we should probably avoid reverting comments just because they're not fully relevant. Reversion of talk page comments should really only be for blatant trolling, vandalism, BLP vio etc. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}
  18:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Reversion of talk page comments should really only be for blatant trolling, vandalism, BLP vio etc. I'm not following. So you're saying we should keep talk comments that violate

  WP:NOT, which is policy, if it isn't obviously vandalism? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk

  _{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you really hate pointless comments that much you could've hatted it, we generally frown on deleting other people's talk page comments after all. But since it didn't get in the way of any ongoing discussion and the editor cannot be expected to be aware of any of the applicable parts of WP:NOT, and even apologised in their comment for not being aware of the rules ahead of time, the better approach here would probably have been to just leave it be and place a welcome template at the IP's talk page. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I know that

  WP:NOT says "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines" (emphasis mine) but that doesn't mean that reverting and warning is always (or even usually) the best option. When a comment in a discussion seems to be made in good faith, or a new editor doesn't understand how talkpages work, it is often a better option to reply and explain to them. Lots of people come to high profile talkpages to troll or spam, and removal of those is fine. With someone who might become a real editor we try to be a little more flexible with how strictly we enforce the rules. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}

  19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you really arguing in defense of

  biting the newbie? Chalk me up as one agreeing that this could have been handled a good bit better, and that there is no frigging useful reason to keep on taking swings (tacit or otherwise) at the IP? Ravenswing

  20:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear to me what part of

WP:NOTFORUM the IP address here violated. Can someone point it out to me, and explain how the IP violated it? Shells-shells (talk

) 19:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm ScottishFinnishRadish, and it seems I've been mentioned a lot in this section. It's likely that I've removed more talk page posts per NOTAFORUM and SOAP than everyone in this section combined, and I would have let that stand, or if I had removed it and was reverted, starting a discussion explaining why I had removed it. In my view, NOTAFORUM/SOAP is a tool to cut down on talk page disruption, rather than a bludgeon to police talk pages. I've been seeing it used a lot more often lately, and in some pretty dubious situations, e.g. after another editor has replied, and I think editors should really think about whether it is disrupting the talk page, rather than a bit FORUMy, before invoking it. Also, the IP agreed with me, so they can't be all bad, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, also I don't think necroing an old section is disruptive on it's face. Plenty of talk pages are slow enough where a few passersby will comment in a section over a year or more and eventually it will demonstrate consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hence why I said depending on how long ago the last reply was. To me if someone replies to a post that hasn't seen activity in 10 years that's not all that constructive to me (usually it should be archived by then but some pages probably aren't frequented enough for archiving to be useful). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not constructive is different from disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This thread is of the "tense" and "strong feelings" variety. 61.8.194.45 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Can we agree to close this thread with a general advisory that we should make an effort to be a little more lenient with IPs and new editors when they are attempting to contribute in good faith? The essay Wikipedia:Don't come down like a ton of bricks seems especially relevant here. Nobody has suggested any sanctions against either Blaze Wolf or IP47, so it seems like our time would be better spent elsewhere. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed! The messages on their talk page can help them! Tails Wx 18:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, please could we close it with a specific advisory directed at the relevant editors? This is a teachable moment.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I support either outcomes here. I myself would only remove talk page comments that are unambiguously vandalism or disruptive, and I don't see how the comments that were being removed here fit that category at all. AP 499D25 (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Y'all need to do it like this: User talk:CEvansMCO#Draft:Brett Stewart (musician) —Alalch E. 23:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  4,138 bytes...sigh. Tails Wx 12:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Meet you in the middle at 3.3k? —Alalch E. 13:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Joking aside, I agree with S Marshall. Support closing with a balanced specific advisory. —Alalch E. 13:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  How about something along these lines?

  In order to strengthen Wikipedia's

  specific changes based in Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

   — Freoh