User talk:ChildrenWillListen

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles complementary and alternative medicine climate change COVID-19, broadly construed Falun Gong governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour Yasuke They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

October 2025

You have had been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: ??? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly, looking at [1] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen, I was surprised to see this block, but what on earth did you think you were doing on that article? Why didn't you just wait for an admin to block the IP? -- asilvering (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, looking at the timestamps again, and with this rather clear clarification that this was prohibited good-faith behavior that additionally fed a troll, it's so unlikely that you'd continue or would repeat it on other pages that I can unblock right away. I also see that the first edits to their talk page were vandalism, but WP:UP#CMT exists and throwing an edit warring warning, of all possible messages, an edit warring warning! on their page in this fashion is absurdly beyond the options. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

throwing an edit warring warning, of all possible messages, an edit warring warning!: I didn't even know that happened. When I enabled the script, the user was modifying warnings from other users (example), so I reverted their edits there. I don't care if people remove warnings from their userpage, and I don't recall ever edit warring those back in. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that one. It's a script I created to revert vandals as soon as they edit a certain page; it's meant for abusers like Salebot1 and others who rapidly vandalize articles or game permissions. I ran it on their talk page and went on to do other things, and it seems they just kept reverting over and over again. I realized this was happening for too long and shut it down. I also never realized this can be construed as edit warring (per WP:3RRNO), but I know better now and would not do that again, and remove that feature from my script just in case (and perhaps get rollback removed since it has clearly got me in trouble, just not the way I think it would.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did think for a moment about revoking rollback but I don't think doing so would benefit either you or the encyclopedia. You would, however, have to request approval for such automation outside of your own userspace and without manual supervision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also disclose of having used a script to rollback all edits by Spare account 1143546781 per WP:BANREVERT. I don't think I ever used used rollback at all besides through those two scripts, and I'd like to have it revoked for now. I'll request the perms somewhere if I ever need it again. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to use rollback as a server-sided, fast alternative to Twinkle's red VANDAL rollback link or similar things provided by other tools. For Twinkle, CSS for removing the red link is at User:ToBeFree/common.css. Revoking the permission, uh ... from my side, not directly after the block and unblock today. It would feel too much like a forced revocation / delayed penalty. If you have thought about this for a few days and noone did it yet, feel free to ping/notify me about it again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah, one thing regarding 3RRNO, this is a rare case where not even reverting a banned user would be justification enough, as even banned users are allowed to edit their own talk page, not just for filing an appeal but at least also for removing read messages. It may be arguable whether someone whose account is blocked is allowed to edit their IP's talk page and whether that depends on still having access to the account. But that's a rather academic discussion as what happened there was simply pointlessly disruptive independently of the edit warring policy.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, reverting gaming edits does not do anything to stop them. What matters is their edit count as shown on the contributions page. Seercat3160 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading Wikipedia:Don't edit-war with vandals or sockpuppets to understand the downsides of such an approach. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for getting rid of that crud on my talk page last night. Thought I might return the favor. Keep up the good work, Lynch44 12:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Paparusso

Hello, I saw your G4 speedy deletion nomination for this article. Is it possible to salt through speedy deletion, or does a salt request require a new AFD? Thank you, 198.145.229.62 (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, typically a new AfD, but you can ask an uninvolved admin to do it for you out-of-process. But do see WP:NOSALT for why salting is a bad idea in general. If you create an account, you can add this page to your watchlist, and be instantly alerted when someone recreates it. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iterator

I should've carefully inspected that IP user's edit in Iterator. I wasn't aware that "Iterator" was correlated to computer programming, I just thought it was gonna be some random article about plants (judging by the name of the article) since I was quickly moving through edits in the Recent Changes, so I wasn't expecting to run into some edits which look arcane to me like "import std;". I thought the IP was implying "sexually transmitted disease" (you see what I mean, right?). That's why I reverted, although I was wrong. So yeah, I thought you deserved an explanation to my strange revert there. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivebeenhacked: You're good. See C++ standard library. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That mess at ANI

FWIW, the IP took exception to this comment I made. I wasn't online yesterday and it was certainly something to log in today and see a whole ANI thread. Gotta update the counter on my userpage too. I'm happy to go in depth about the connections between Dinoboyaz and the IPs, but honestly I just suggest taking a look at Dinoboyaz's contribs and pattern of behavior and I think you'll see the resemblance too. He's been harassing me and Pi for a few years now, and it's even gotten into harassing messages on my Commons talk page after one of his IPs caught a block for socking and proxy use. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of documented information

Hello, I’m requesting that the recent edit removing Shari Kasman from the “More than a Beach” documentary description be restored. She is documented as appearing in the film as tour guide, so removing this factual information makes the article less accurate. Thank you. 2001:4958:3412:E701:3D88:6F5:1610:467B (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im referring to the Bloordale Beach entry. 2001:4958:3412:E701:3D88:6F5:1610:467B (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes that one, thanks for letting me know what this is about. I don't see why we should add that per WP:DUE, we generally don't name members of the cast when we mention a film or documentary from an unrelated article (exceptions may apply, of course.) Also, I recall that page had issues with WP:COI editing by multiple individuals, so can you please disclose if you are related to any of them in any way? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 07:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated tag

Hello, would you be able to clarify the reason for the AI-generated tag on Earth-bathing? I have confirmed that the information is consistent with the cited sources while being paraphrased so as to not violate copyright, aside from occasional direct quotes when necessary. I put care into consolidating the sourced information, and the references are not fictitious. Was there anything in particular that stood out to you as hallucinated, or would you have any suggestions for improvement? I'm interested in creating more articles, so any feedback would be appreciated, thanks! Alexander Patmos (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexander Patmos: There were ChatGPT citations in the initial version of the article, and also the excessive use of em-dashes. Only remove the tag if you are absolutely sure that the article has proper source-text integrity. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I utilized ChatGPT to find additional sources and it reflected in the URL, and furthermore, I am aware that em dashes are a well-known indication of AI use, so I understand your logic in adding the tag and think your assessment was fair. I believe my sources are reliable and properly deployed. but I'll have to use dashes more sparingly going forward. Thanks for explaining! Alexander Patmos (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than what the non-useful message above just detailed (–), curly quotes (“ and ” or ‘ and ’) usage are also an indicator (as it is not standard per the MOS). The most ostensible part in the article is the non-standard subheadings, just as an instance: A Short Treatise..., therapy and claim rationale, the subheading in the article is not a standard subheading on Wikipedia and seems fabricated and along with knowledge cut-off dates are usually indicative of AI writing or known on Wikipedia as WP:LLM. 182.187.148.47 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there was a manual of style that addressed curly quotes. I will ensure they are straight going forward, and try to reference MOS for formatting.

Additionally, I was not aware that Wikipedia had a standard for subheadings. I have seen some pretty unique subheadings on Wikipedia, but I will have to be mindful to keep them more broad.

I appreciate the feedback. -- Alexander Patmos (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I draftified the article for being composed of LLM-generated text. I documented an example of LLM-style language and source-to-text integrity issues at the draft talk page. NicheSports (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NicheSports I am hopeful you will review and be able to verify that there are no longer source-to-text integrity issue issues in my new Draft:Earth-bathing article, thanks! -- Alexander Patmos (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a bit confused by your message here AP. Can you please disclose if, and how, you used an LLM while creating this article? NicheSports (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NicheSports I utilized ChatGPT to locate potential sources. (The only one I actually incorporated was Wikisource, but I now realize Wikisource is an inadequate source.)

I did not use AI to select material to incorporate nor was it used to consolidate my research; but in my final stages of drafting, I did utilize Grammarly's AI functionality to fine-tune the way I worded certain sections and improve the overall language.

I have rewritten the article (here: Draft:Earth-bathing) and refrained from using AI tools this time around. None of the new text is LLM-generated, none of the information is hallucinated, and all of the claims were taken from sources per my own research. -- Alexander Patmos (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Rowspan"

Thank you for being observative, and for so politely and deservedly delivering a boot to my backside. Well, the article Grammatical tenses needs a great amount of work (I've hardly started on it); and once it's corrected and sourced and examples are provided, in its entirety it's likely to be simplistic or indigestible or, most likely, a strange mixture of both. I'm rather regretting my amiable response here; perhaps I should have just ignored the directive "improve page on Tenses". -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

???

Keeps erasing everything I'm adding even though I can't see anything wrong with them. RandomSillyGuy9 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomSillyGuy9: Please do not add WP:FANCRUFT or other non-notable entries to disambiguation pages. In general, entries must only be added if they are mentioned in the article you link. Thanks! Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok now I see RandomSillyGuy9 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

temporary accounts

you mentioned at ANI that each temporary account can only be used by one person. as far as i can tell there's no ID verification or biometrics involved, so i'm not sure what you mean. ~2025-31294-09 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-31294-09: People can share cookies, but only if they want to. On the other hand, many people can share the same IP address and can't choose otherwise. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok. thanks ~2025-31294-09 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Aesurias (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to involve yourself if you don't want to but I saw you dealed with this user so thought I should let you know. Have a good day! Aesurias (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle for Dream Island

Any clue as to why this LTA is fixated on the article and talk page? Trade (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Judging by their vandalism, they're probably young, and BFDI is mostly popular among young people. Other targets include Sunrise, Day, Month, User:Sandbox, etc. and span across several wikis, including Fandom and Miraheze. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

beans

Please, stop spilling them all over the place. I know you're just trying to explain things to people who are confused. But some things are need-to-know, some things are iykyk, and some things make it impossible for checkusers to take action if you say them out loud. I really do appreciate your work here and I apologize for the terseness of this message. But please, you've got to put a lid on it. -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. Please be more discreet. Toadspike [Talk] 11:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I've sent you an email (I think). Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Received, I'm just dawdling on answering it because I've been really tired today. Sorry about that. -- asilvering (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned

at SPI  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, User talk:Soviet invasion of Albania, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use your sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Did you intend to be posting to an article talk page and end up creating a user talk page for a non-existent user? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. I see that there really is a user by that name. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Why did you delete my thread? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1323318541 Chtosajn Ibn Zahri (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chtosajn Ibn Zahri: Why did you restore this edit right before that? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t write that stuff. Chtosajn Ibn Zahri (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put my message thread back, so please don’t remove it Chtosajn Ibn Zahri (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but why did you click "undo" to restore an obvious vandal edit? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t even do that. I reloaded the page because my thread wasn’t being posted, so maybe that has something to do with it. I didn’t mean to put that other stuff there. Chtosajn Ibn Zahri (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note on copyright rev-del requests

Thanks for identifying and reporting copyright issues, such as on Syed A. B. Mahmud Hossain. One note: don't include your edit removing the text as part of the rev-del request. Once we remove the edit immediately prior to your edit, your edit shows no history, which means we've sufficiently protected the text. It's not a big deal to have one extra edit rev-del'd, but it can be avoided since it doesn't expose anything. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: Thanks for letting me know. It seems User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js does this automatically, and I don't see an option not to include the end revision in the revdel range. I suppose manually editing the template would fix this. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can restrict the range to exclude your edit, and if it's a single edit that needs revdel, just unclick the range checkbox. See Template:Copyvio-revdel#Targeting the correct revision "oldids" for more info on ranges to select. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: just unclick the range checkbox: Thanks, this does what I want! Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections - Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• November 25 – December 1 - Call for candidates
• December 4–8 - Discussion phase
• December 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, ChildrenWillListen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 02:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~delta: Replied. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~delta: ...and again! Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~delta: Sent an email to you-know-who. Let's hope this info helps them resolve the situation. Anyway, thanks so much for talking about this! Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that was not me that was my little brother on MY laptop I told him NOT to use MY LAPTOP sorry for the trblue ~2025-34911-97 (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:My little brother did it – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 13:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, ChildrenWillListen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. jellyfish ✉ 21:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jellyfish: Replied. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jellyfish: Check ANI, someone else has reported them already. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have made a mistake.

You suggested the page I made appeared to have been modified by an AI chatbot; however, I can confirm that I wrote it myself. 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 06:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it should appear my references are fictitious, I would be happy to find ones that appear more suitable. 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 06:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RFKTNG: Franz Josef Aerodrome was initially AI-generated, and the sources you added after that do not support article content (meaning all your references are fictitious). I have nominated it for deletion under WP:G15. Wikipedia:Unofficial Corgi Club of Wikipedia is also generated using an LLM. Please do not use AI tools to write articles or other pages; you can now clearly see they generate fake references. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are NOT FAKE REFRENCES and NOT AI-GENERATED 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 06:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RFKTNG: Yes, they were. I see you've now replaced some with a citation to Wikipedia, which isn't allowed per WP:CIRCULAR. Please do not use LLMs again. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then I will remove the Wikipedia citations. 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 06:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, incase I have not made you aware I DID NOT USE AN LLM 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 06:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RFKTNG: It seems your other article Invercargill Public Art Gallery is also generated using an LLM and suffers from similar issues. From a quick inspection: sources 6-7, 12-14 do not exist, source 1 fails verification for which contains more than 1,000 works across a range of media., source 5 fails verification for a Georgian/Neo-Georgian house completed in 1925 and designed by architect Cecil Wood, source 15 fails verification for temporary exhibitions by local, national and international artists, and source 16 redirects me somewhere else (probably doesn't exist either.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your article List of art galleries in New Zealand contains a comment from an LLM: (Only galleries with verifiable sources and established exhibition activity are included.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That 'Comment from an LLM' was to identify a scope of the page because not all galleries were included 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 08:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that a sockpuppet investigation has been opened suggesting that I am the same editor as Molems. I would like to clarify that we are separate individuals. I first encountered him through Wikipedia, noticing his signature, which included a New Zealand flag. Over time, we developed a friendly rapport. He also recommended Timtrent as a helpful editor, and after reviewing some of his contributions, I awarded him a Barnstar.

There is no substantive evidence to support the claim that I am the same person as Molems. I respectfully request that this issue be reviewed and corrected.

I would also like to respectfully clarify that assuming an article is written by an LLM does not constitute sufficient evidence to support such a conclusion. I am fully willing to verify the sources for all of my articles and to replace any citations you believe are unsuitable.

🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 08:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RFKTNG: Over time, we developed a friendly rapport.: Definitely not onwiki, since the only interaction you've had with them was [2]. They have email disabled don't have an email set, so you couldn't have contacted them through that either.

Anyway, [3] is obviously LLM generated content. I've told you this twice, but please, please do not use AI. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have email disabled 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 08:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has an email, and he emailed me. 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 08:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have never set their email, so they couldn't have possibly emailed you. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could rewrite all pages, and fix my mistakes, if that at least amends the issues, and also... Feel free to just fix my mistakes and let me know. That way I should actually improve. I would like to ask for your guidance. 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 09:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for agreeing to fix your mistakes. I recommend doing the following:

1. Admit you've used AI

2. Assure us you won't use AI again, and follow through

3. Disclose any alternate accounts you may have used, including, but not limited to, Molems

4. Assure us you won't attempt to abuse multiple accounts or engage in off-wiki canvassing again

If you need help with any of this, please let me know. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will accept this.

• I admit I used an LLM
• I assure you @ChildrenWillListen and the rest of the wikipedia community that I will not use AI again.
• Molems is an alternate account
• I assure you I will not abuse multiple accounts again, so long as I live. and strive to be a legitimate and helpful member of the Wikipedia.

🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 10:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, I will delete the account of Molems 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 10:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it if you agree that this is within the best interest of Wikipedia 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 10:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you absolutely sure 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 08:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Special:EmailUser/Molems says they don't have an email set, so I'm sure of that. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to email him though 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 09:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RFKTNG You write above "I will delete the account of Molems". However, Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted. Would you like me to block the account instead? Toadspike [Talk] 12:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helped

When you reply to an editor who has used the {{Help}} template, as you did at User talk:AgentsOfMendeleviaBot, please remember to change the template to {{Helped}}, as I did here, so that the former template no longer flags the page as needing an answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing admin from a user

This is neither here nor there for the Arbitration request, but I would just like to note until the community amends the Arbitration Policy, it is plainly appropriate that ArbCom is To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools in parallel to recall. And it is able to handle other sanctions which might help address the actual content issues in a way that recalling him alone would not do, making it (for me) a superior venue in this particular case (though I am not as convinced it needed to go from AN at this point in the process). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Yes, of course, I was just responding to the fact that the community is powerless (or at least strongly disincentivized) to take action against admins. If ArbCom accepts the case, I am indeed aware they can choose to sanction administrators without taking away their tools (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman comes to mind.) I will amend my comment there to make that clear. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AC

Don't want to use up my remaining words on a tangent, but if they receive enough DMCA requests from copyright holders, they will have no choice, admin or no. Also, if you'll pardon me - I'm going to rant about the DMCA for a moment. It's a well documented practice that movie studios and game studios and what have you actively abuse this system to get negative commentary about their products removed from SNS posts. It's why I'm such a stickler for removing non-free plot summaries - I want regular people to be able to use screengrabs from our article while critiquing a show's writing without a mouse-shaped lawyer getting their video pulled from Youtube and their account blocked.

The WMF does not say the reason for bans, making it hard to say for certain why somebody got removed. User:Flooded with them hundreds for example - was their ban for repeatedly infringing copyright, or a different TOU abuse? Was User:Messina? Goodness knows, and goodness knows we're not getting an answer out of a bunch of lawyers. (Not that I can blame them for that, actually - lawyers saying "we have copyright issues on our site!" is the legal equivalent of supergluing a giant "kick me" sign on your chest.) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but if they receive enough DMCA requests from copyright holders, they will have no choice, admin or no.: The WMFOffice account does occasionally remove Commons files on DMCA requests, but I have never seen them block anyone for that.

I've gone through the ban list when I was bored, and it seems a lot of the pre-2019 bans were generally made for political/personal reasons (WP:FRAMBAN of course being the eventual culmination of such behavior.) Other reasons (which are more common now) include posting or supporting the presence of CSAM, off-wiki harassment, compromising accounts, undisclosed paid editing, etc. The two accounts you mention are probably banned for some kind of harassment, especially considering that Flooded with them hundreds was ArbComBlocked right before that. As for copyright violations, I'm not aware of any, but I would definitely like to know if you happen to stumble across one.

I'm sure the WMF T&S receives thousands of global ban requests every month, usually from disgruntled users or LTAs. One even tries to "trick" certain users into acting like they're violating policy to try to get them global banned. They must be aware by now when to leave things to local administration (i.e. ArbCom) and when to take action, but I definitely echo your sentiment regarding the opacity of office actions, and I don't think they're extremely trustworthy either. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the reason we don't see blocks that often is because the community is more vigilant than the copyright holders - the WMF doesn't need to ban somebody if Commons already has, and I've never had an issue with Commons admins blocking editors who repeatedly upload non-free files or deleting said non-free files. And they, for legal liability reasons, I believe, don't go fishing the way they might (or might not) for other TOU issues. If they get a DMCA request for one file, they'll look at that one file and take whatever action their lawyers tell them. They won't click the upload tag and see if the editor's uploaded 50 other screenshots as "own work" are genuinely own work or not. They'll wait for another DMCA request - and the chances of another actionable request being sent, for the same editor, are pretty low. I, as an editor not affiliated with the WMF, can look. And I can, following the local processes, nominate it for deletion and ask a commons admins for a block.

Again, without the repetitive complaints from people who have standing to complain (there's a very good reason that many organizations only hear certain types of complaints from people who have standing - it probably helps guard against the people you listed in your last example!) the chance of an action is very low. But part of that balance comes from not forcing their hands. I'm not a risk taker, so I know that if I make them answer the question "is thing than a user has repeatedly done a TOU violation?", then I should only do that if I'm very certain of the answer. And okay with them nuking said article. And editor. Because if they say "yes", even privately (I respect SFR immensely - but why should they think WMF-Arbcom communications are guaranteed to be private now?), does that jeopardize their status as a publisher? Does that give the copyright holder actual grounds to sue the WMF? Their conversations aren't going to be, I believe, protected by privilege, so would that "yes, this is a copyright issue, and no, we're not removing it" going to be discoverable should said lawsuit happen? Is it worth the risk? Have you ever met a lawyer who's happy? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail (NS)

Hello, ChildrenWillListen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— NicheSports (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]