User talk:Isaidnoway

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn't use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like: "What about lunch?"   — A. A. Milne

---

Folks, it is 2025, there is nothing wrong with using LGBTQ as an acronym on Wikipedia

---

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

                

---

Billie Eilish discography

The reason why I added Portugal certification on the song "Wildflower" because I don’t see the Wikipedia page and link to the aforementioned song by Billie Eilish. Also, I completely understand on the format regarding the Portugal certification cite ref on the Singles section on the Billie Eilish discography. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you. FireDragonValo (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FireDragonValo - Try using this: <ref>{{cite certification |region= |type= |artist=Billie Eilish |title= |id= |access-date=}}</ref> or you could use <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> using a direct link to the website. Hope this helps. Thanks for reaching out. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!!! Thank you so much!!! FireDragonValo (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August music

story · music · places

Thank you for opposing a ban for a new editor! - I have three "musicians" on the Main page, one the topic of my story today, like 22 July but with interview and today's music at the Proms. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did i do? 73.33.117.12 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A message from JACamarillo

JACamarillo (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Totally new here, and honestly don't have any background with publishing on Wikipedia. So, I guess what I read was, as long as I write the information in my "own words", and copy past my source, then my post would be accepted?????[reply]

Yes, write the content in your own words, and use a citation template if it is a book: <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |location= |publisher= |page= |isbn=}}</ref>. Also make sure the content you are adding is relevant to the page you are adding it to. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

regarding my behaviour

I am contacting you to apologise for my behaviour towards georgescu and cobra portugal. Bird244 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im serious I have the source🤦‍♂️

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

why did you delete the information that i already made in the article "Ogoh-ogoh", im serious i have the source bruh TghNWtr11 (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not your bruh. Second, per WP:BURDEN - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You failed to add any inline citations to a reliable source to verify the material you added, so it was removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok my bad TghNWtr11 (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bump Stock Source Revision

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good afternoon,

I had scoured the internet looking for the source of how many bump stocks the ATF recieved. There are hundreds of reputable news sites that mention a FOIA request, however none show the request or any other details.

The YouTube Cheap, in his videos, claims to have created the FOIA request. He shows it on camera and provided a link to an image of the FOIA request with what can only assume is his own private information redacted.

The date of the video is September 20th, 2019. The same date that is listed on the FOIA request.

This is also the earliest case I have found quoting this number.

This means that in the discussion regarding firearm ownership and mandatory surrender/forfeiture, Wikipedia is the only place online providing direct sources as to modern day, compliance.

I think it's important in the overall article regarding bump stocks and opinions to legislation to document this compliance statistic, but also is primary source, which is that YouTuber Cheapshot.

Thank you.

98.25.85.94 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider an anonymous user on YouTube called "CheapShot", a SPS with no editorial oversight, or The Washington Times to be reputable sources. If those are the only sources you can find, then the content is probably not DUE for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source (Karuhat Sor.Supawan)

Hello, can you explain why you deleted my source? If you click "https://8limbsus.com/muay-thai-forum/topic/1516-the-123-book-the-all-time-greatest-muay-thai-fighters-of-thailand/" it links directly to scans of the book in my citation.

Web forums are "rarely regarded as reliable", per "Wikipedia:Reliable source examples", but that same page also that "exceptions can naturally be made using common sense, in order to reach a collaborative conclusion".

I think this is a clear example of an exception, no? The source is the book, the forum is merely hosting it. There is no other way to read it online so without that link you're just making it more difficult for people to verify the information/citation. Thanks. Briantcraven (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An internet forum is WP:UGC. The source is the book itself, and quite frankly, that book looks sketchy as hell to me, there is no author information, no indication of an editor, no idea if it's a reputable publisher with any degree of editorial oversight, and if it's the only source for making that claim - often regarded as one of the greatest and most talented fighters in the history of Muay Thai - then it's probably undue for inclusion. If the claim is really that significant and notable ("often regarded as one of the greatest and most talented"), then I would expect it would be very easy to find multiple reliable sources making that claim, instead of resorting to using a sketchy source hosted on an internet forum. At the very least, it should be attributed to who is making that claim. If you want to add the url back to a website that is user-generated content, go ahead, I can't stop you, but in my view, that book is a crappy source, and so is the internet forum hosting it. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "no author information, no indication of an editor, no idea if it's a reputable publisher with any degree of editorial oversight" you can see from this link: https://www.amazon.com/TIME-GREATEST-MUAY-FIGHTERS-COLLECTIBLE/dp/B087WF6CD1 that there is additional pages they didn't include such as a page detailing the "creative team". It's a rare book but I can look into finding out more about it.

It's not the only available source for "often regarded as one of the greatest and most talented fighters in the history of Muay Thai" but it gives a lot of detail. There's also SiamFightMag, with two articles exclusively for him (including an interview) and numerous other mentions, as well as numerous interviews on YouTube of famous Muay Thai fighters and coaches, conducted by Sylvie von Duuglas-Ittu, of which he is one of the most commonly rated. SiamFightMag also has article dedicated to the contents of the book but with a lot less detail. There are also lots of Thai newspapers and magazines that mention him.

Briantcraven (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Amazon link you provided says the author of the book is the Kingdom of Thailand, which doesn't strike me as the kind of independent source we would desire for that type of claim, considering Karuhat Sor.Supawan is a citizen from Thailand. And the book publisher is listed as Authentic Muay Thai Supply, which sells Muay Thai gear and equipment, which really doesn't inspire confidence that there is any editorial oversight over the book. And YouTube videos shouldn't ever be used to make third-party claims about a BLP, and SiamFightMag appears to be a self-published blog. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided was to show in the preview that there are more pages, such as the "creative team" page, which gives more detail which I will locate but the author/publisher section I don't think is official.

An interview of a notable figure on YouTube is not valid?

What're you looking for when you weigh whether or not SiamFightMag is a blog? They've been reporting in the field for 20 years while conducting interviews and writing articles in a non-diary format.

Thank you for your help.

Briantcraven (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1977 yugoslav basket league

is it ok now? Oksimormon (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mojadosthroughthenight.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mojadosthroughthenight.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A message from IslaAntilia

Hi, new user here. I think you added a note on my changes that said I didn't cite things correctly, and that a link is not a citation? I've just been using the auto-cite, which only asks for a url, what am I doing wrong? Do I need to add things in addition to the URL? Thanks. IslaAntilia (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit seen here, you added the URL as the title of the citation. A URL is not the title. Even if you use auto-cite, you still need to check your work and see if the citation was formatted properly, before Publish changes, as automated tools often make mistakes. You can also review WP:HOWCITE for what information to include in a citation. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm Drewthescorpio. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Teegarden's Star have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Drewthescorpio (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drewthescorpio - vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, don't use that term unless you know for a fact that it is indeed vandalism. I don't appreciate being called a vandal. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the term vandalism or vandal. I didn't say it was vandalism. I used a templated warning from Ultraviolet.

Drewthescorpio (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drewthescorpio - This edit summary you left says Undid serious page vandalism. Like I said, vandalism has a very specific meaning, don't leave edit summaries accusing someone of vandalism, unless you know what you are talking about. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bypass

User:Joshua Jonathan/Tools#Notes the last bullit. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Nikita Bhamidipati

Roadies and Splitsvilla Wiki Pages

Hello, I had left a request to view those pages before because unfortunately, it seems like it's all being merged together with even the list of contesants being removed from the wiki CONSIDERING huge Indian stars have competed on this show. If a page is kept, information should atleast be available on the page or it's better to delete the pages from the wiki itself instead of keeping useless pages. And on me being unnecessary or whatever, I think my irritation is justified cause I maintained those pages for years (even when people were vandalizing it) so I have a right to get angry at this situation where your efforts are literally bring erased off the wiki. Also, I was on Splitsvilla (Indian version of Love Island) as a contestant and was dumped from the villa in 8th place and to see all the details on my season get erased off the wiki is definitely sad and annoying cause the pages were very well maintained and had no sort of misinformation. But well, that's all up to you, atleast I'm still on the Ace Of Space page - I also competed on that show. Nikita Bhamidipati (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you were on the show "Splitsvilla (Indian version of Love Island) as a contestant", and also on the show "Ace Of Space", then you have a conflict of interest, which explains quite a bit with you being upset about this matter. Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. Thank you for disclosing your connection to these topics. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:BLPPRIVACY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hiya @Isaidnoway. Thanks for the survey you conducted here, although I was wondering if you knew how or when we could close that discussion/survey as per justified consensus, since there is an overwhelming vote to include Bonnie’s birthname and birthdate into her article page, with several reliable/valid sources available for this.

Secondly, sorry if this could be a disturbance (but since you and I appear to see the inclusion of information from the same lense), I noticed that same kind of false/unwarranted WP:BLPPRIVACY misconception around Bonnie is also being applied to another adult-content model/creator in Amouranth. As per WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB, her birthdate is on 2 December 1993, and she even admitted that without any (misconceived) fear or privacy concern in this livestreamed interview here between/in the 16:22–16:40 minute mark. Her birthday being on 2 December also makes sense (or corroborates) per these previous 2 December birthday posts from/on her verified X account here, here, here, here and/or even her posting on 29 November 2016 about “her 23rd birthday” being in a few days (on 2 December 2016) here. Likewise this Metro published newspaper post here in December 2022, talks about her “having celebrated turning 29 on 2 December (2022)”, whereas this link here fully includes her birthdate. There are several other sources, but they could be deemed unreliable, so I can stop there. But in those sources that I provided, I don’t believe that any WP:SYNTH nor “routine calculation” have been breached.

Currently her article page states she was born in “1993 or 1994”, but as a pedantic individual, I deem that as clearly vague or inacurrate, especially since the real accurate information can be found.

You’ve been on here much longer than me, so I was wondering what you think/thought? Do the aforementioned referenced links call for her birthdate inclusion, especially with recent users/editors trying to rightly include her full birthdate (of 2 December 1993), but to be met with stubborn reverts? Or do you think an unneccesary RfC, would suffice? Regards — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 21:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on Bonnie Blue was just opened, so it's best to let it run for a while. Wikipedia is not on a deadline. And just to note, the question asked is only related to her real name, not her date of birth, that is a separate issue from what was asked in the RfC. I haven't looked into Amouranth, or been involved in that discussion, so I have no opinion on that subject. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Either way, I think we can also surely include Bonnie’s birthdate once there’s a final verdict around the inclusion of her biographical information. I believe we both don’t see any issue with including her birthdate as well per the available sources (and I’m sure other users/editors wouldn’t as well), but feel free to create another simultaneous RfC on/around that.

But regarding Amouranth, would you mind looking into the sources I provided, to see if it’s worth something discussing/surveying?

Thanks – Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 00:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in getting involved with Amouranth and the discussion surrounding her date of birth, nor am I interested in starting a RfC on Bonnie Blues date of birth. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your edit summary

Responding here because you pinged me. Thank you for your attentiveness and for improving the article, but you might want to review the relevant pending changes guideline. Pending changes protection is not used to enforce verifiability outside of BLP, let alone citation style, which is locally determined (see WP:CITESTYLE). If you find this troublesome, you could lobby to have the page protection changed to something else. Cheers. —Rutebega (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I find troublesome is that other editors have to clean up after edits you have approved. If you don't find it problematic that edits you approve are not being verified per our policy, or that citation errors are being introduced into articles because of your approval, then that's on you. Thanks for letting me know. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Jfksfoatx

Hi! Could you help me identify which parts of Rhonda Roland Shearer's wikipedia is written like a resume? This page seems to be written more neutrally than many artist's pages, such as Kenneth Goldsmith, which is written exactly like a resume? Thank you so much!! Jfksfoatx (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Marietta Daily Journal.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Marietta Daily Journal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dave Ramsey, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia considers Fox News a reliable source when it's not politics or science

WP:DENY

You should not have removed the source per Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources considering it a reliable source since an arrest report has nothing to do with politics or science. Claiming find a better source is just wrong. 107.222.64.119 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I have no idea what article you are referring to, or what you are talking about. Please include diffs to substantiate what you are talking about. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] After looking at your contribution history, I see now what article you are referring to. I did not remove the arrest report because of Fox News, I removed it per WP:BLPPRIMARY - Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents (which is what the arrest report is), to support assertions about a living person. I suggest you read up on one of our core policies WP:BLP. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] This is what the history shows. curprev 14:22, 20 July 2025 Isaidnoway talk contribs 27,725 bytes −242 remove arrest report from Fox News, find a better source Notice you wrote, remove arrest report from Fox News, find a better source. Did you lie on why you removed it? 107.222.64.119 (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I explained why I removed it. See my previous reply. Do not imply that I was lying. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] You said in the reason why you removed it that the person needed to find a better source. Now you're saying it was not related to the source. So which one is it? 107.222.64.119 (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove

WP:DENY

Why did you remove that he brought a weapon to a school event? A knife is a weapon and is listed in the article. 107.222.64.119 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Why aren't you logged into your account? Isaidnoway (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] First you removed a source claiming the person needs to find a better source. When asked about it you gave a different reason. You removed my comment claiming one thing even though it was literally part of the article. Are you feeling ok? 107.222.64.119 (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations removed from live

Hi, I saw you were doing some edits on precious pepala article thank you so much, I do have a question what do we do when citations are moved from their website online ? Like you click the link and it says oops or 404 error ?. Cause when I wrote it they were live is there a way to fix that ?. Just wanna know thank you so much. Meio2934 (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google search for the title of the article. Don't use ChatGPT as you previously have. It's obvious that Precious Pepala also contains some AI-generated content, like the other articles you created. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you so much for the input I will do that, but as for the articles that are no longer live and were already used how do we retrieve them ? Is there a way to? Meio2934 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, do a Google search for the title of the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for the input Meio2934 (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I just edited the page for precious pepala, and fixed the citations lots of them were offline and i got them back, in regards of the rolling stone one, it is cited in the article body but due to the advertisement in their article you can't quite see. So what i did, is i archived it in PDF and included the live link and the PDF link if you want to check feel free to. I also rewrote the majority of the content as suggested. Meio2934 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, looks better. Are you going to review the other articles you created, to make sure those cites are still online, might not hurt to take a look and check. Thanks again. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, absolutely I am going over one by one, I am on Sophia dashing now. Meio2934 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A message from 117.245.245.120

117.245.245.120 (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC) hey Isaidnoway , I am from india my client is asking to contact with you as we wanted to create a wikipedia for them , hope you will understand what we need , thanks for your support hope you will look forward..[reply]

No, I will not create a page for your client. Please see Help:Your first article, and Are you connected to the article topic?. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Mabellazou2003

Mabellazou2003 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Please stop, ISaidNoWay. Liu HaoCun's Chinese Wikiepdia page listed her legal age as 1998/05/20. What else do you need? In 2021, her passport number was first released under the entertainment company she registered herself at and it shows 1998/5/20; that's when it first circled that she was in age fraud. In 2024, she went through a major legal lawsuit in China, and the Court Verdict from the Highest court of the People's Republic of China stated her official date of Birth as May 20, 1998. The link:https://www.douban.com/group/topic/299966785/?_i=4421689tIHaBnJ In fact,all of her legal documents states 1998, and all Chinese netizens know it, some fans just claimed her parents registered her 2 years older when she was first born, which is quite ridiculous. You have no solid proof that she was born in 2000 except she herself and her team explained to use 2000. 90% actresses wanted to be younger in the industry. She used 2000 when she first debut but Chinese netizens only got to know her real DOB 1998 after the lawsuit broke out and was in public eye. She also has to her birth certificate and passport information when registrations for her company; and it was 1998/5/20. If you want to believe word of an actress instead of an official passport then suit yourself. She is legally 1998/5/20. She tried to hide it.[reply]

You need to find a reliable source for the content you want to add per our policies. And douban.com is just a a social media platform, which can not be used to verify anything, as it is user-generated content. Please take some time to read and familiarize yourself with our WP:BLP policy, which says we must use high-quality sources for a living person. Thanks for reaching out. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Charles McDew.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charles McDew.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For an on point sock description that made me laugh Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts

Hi Isaidnoway, I think [1], and to a lesser extent [2], distract from the actual discussion topic. All you'll get is a reference to Special:Diff/1307286402, which I explained here. This is of course something we can disagree about and you may prefer the material to stay during the discussion, but all of the ban proposal comments and behavioral issue complaints are pre-this. You're creating a strawman by reducing the discussion to the least problematic aspect of the behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, no, those comments are very relevant to the discussion. And if this exchange is accurate, what you framed as a "prediction", and then that prediction came true, at the very least, since you had already indicated you wouldn't block Slacker13 for disruptive behavior, you should have stepped aside and let another admin handle it. We shouldn't be ignoring disruptive behavior, especially in light of all the evidence that has been presented that they are indeed out to RGW. Any other editor who edit-warred content back into an article during an ongoing RfC and ongoing ANI report would have been blocked, it's puzzling this editor seemingly got a free pass for their disruption. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? I don't understand if this exchange is accurate. Are you referring to the diff 1307286402 I had linked in my message? That's the "exchange". Where's the "if" or accuracy concern from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it is accurate then, so in my view, you should have recused yourself since you said you would not block Slacker13 if they engaged in disruptive behavior. You should probably just step aside and let other admins handle this incident from here on out, since you are not inclined to block editors for edit-warring during an ongoing RfC and an ongoing ANI report. Thanks for reaching back out. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaidnoway, this is far more complex than not blocking someone for disruptive behavior, not least because the ANI discussion is running.

Since the start of the full protection, I had doubts about keeping a section about sexual abuse allegations currently disputed with good-faith concerns protected inside a BLP. You may question the good faith because of conflicts of interest and collaboration, but this seems to be the kind of COI that causes users to edit disruptively in best faith, genuinely failing to see issues. And if the objections are voiced in good faith, WP:BLPRESTORE applies and normally prohibits restoration without discussion. The only argument overcoming this hurdle is the existence of an RfC which can be seen as the required discussion, but it's 5 years old, doesn't mandate any specific wording and was closed for inclusion of the "extent necessary to provide context for subsequent biographical developments".

WP:PREFER exists but begins with noting that administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content. As it turns out, the article contained a birth date that lacks sources. I can't check for everything but such pitfalls evidently exist. During the discussions, experienced editors such as Chetsford and Ad Orientem had voiced concerns about the inclusion, and you too had proposed at least changing the currently-used references for reliability reasons. If the article had been fully-protected for 30 days already in that state, we would have had to make changes to the article on request. Locking it in that state became less and less of an option.

I don't see a "free pass" in being unable to edit the article and being subject of a ban discussion that, obviously-canvassed comments discounted, seems to be going pretty clearly towards a ban. From your perspective, I'm not sure what exactly you're unhappy about regarding the current state of everything after all the actions. Is it having to wait 30 days before allegations currently under discussion are possibly re-added to the biography, or is it Slacker13's ability to edit ANI because a block would have prevented them from doing so? What would you change? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that complex. They edit-warred to their preferred version (twice), that is a blockable offense, and since you had earlier indicated you would not block him for being disruptive, you should have recused yourself and let another admin handle it, at their discretion. But what's done is done, and hopefully Slacker13 will take some time off to reflect on the poor decisions they have made. As for myself, I will continue to watch both discussions at ANI, and the growing consensus for inclusion in the RfC. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your easy world, Discospinster would have been blocked. [3] [4] I'll keep it in mind but I don't think it's good advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This entire matter has become a giant cluster bleep to the point where I've pretty much given up on it. I was, and still am fairly sympathetic to the BLP concerns. If this had been handled as a straight discussion based on P&G I think there was at least an even chance that side of the argument would have carried. The irony is that all the aggressive canvassing, bludgeoning and accusations of bad faith have poisoned the well. At this point I see no realistic chance of gaining a consensus that the losing side will accept as legitimate. I haven't bothered commenting in the most recent RfC and am doubtful I will. The whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, but consensus is policy, so whatever the outcome of the RfC is, I will respect that, because that is what expected and required. As far as the canvassing and bludgeoning go, I am sure, or should I say hopeful, that whoever closes the RfC will see fit to take those issues into consideration. Thanks for stopping by. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, yes, it would be nice if it was an easy world. Slacker13 said on ANI - Was I a bit overzealous? Yes, and I'd be happy to curtail that.. But yet just today on August 26, they have bludgeoned the RfC discussion with another 13 comments (so far), and engaged in an edit war with an admin on the talk page, according to the page history I just looked at.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Isaidnoway (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with Ad Orientem and ToBeFree. Edit-warring is the threshold at which application of a block becomes authorized, as opposed to some kind-of switch that mandates it. Since blocking is protective, and not punitive, every possible alternative should be exhausted before blocking, even if a block is technically permissible. In this unique situation in which a large number of zombie accounts were canvassed to the discussion, blocking the editor in quesiton may not only have failed to achieve a protective function, but may have exacerbated the situation. Chetsford (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the t-ban under discussion at ANI results in Slacker13 being t-banned from editing pages related to Zak Smith, do you think that will exacerbate the situation. Good lord, I hope not, that talk page is ripe enough as is. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact, I was the first to support the TBAN after the proposer. Chetsford (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an intriguing comment, posted by Simonm223 in the ANI report. If true, a copy of his book seems kind of cheap, let's hope they were at least autographed. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm trying to see if I can track down evidence of that. Right now I've found statements from people unrelated to Wikipedia talking about Smith using this tactic to bring increased pressure to Bluesky and Reddit - and both platforms have seen a sudden spike in Zak Smith supporter accounts making noise at around the same time we did. Simonm223 (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now, with that being said, I don't think @ToBeFree is doing Smith or Slacker13 any favors with their actions, which is why I have not made any complaints to or about them. Frankly I'm very anti-edit-warring in my perspective. An RfC is underway. If the page is somewhat incomplete for a few weeks until the RfC concludes I don't honestly think it's the end of the world. Also, while my opinion is that the BLP bar is met (as I've said in the RfC) I agree with ToBeFree that BLP matters are serious and should be treated with appropriate seriousness. This is part of what upsets me about this disruption, including the spurious maligning of academic authors and presses by Slacker13 which, themselves, represents a failure to properly understand or apply BLP. Meanwhile the fact that Slacker13 waited for protection to go down to edit-war their preferred version in is evidentiary and other editors at the AN/I thread are very likely to consider that evidence when deciding how to handle this editor. I just hope one of the many engaged admins (I'm not going to tag any of them but there are several) who are aware of this situation will interpret the AN/I consensus promptly so that this disruption can end and we can get on with concluding the RfC and adjudicating this BLP material per policy. Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if this is true, Smith is not unique in his campaign, as this wouldn't be the first time the subject of an article has tried to influence and/or manipulate content in an article. We are fortunate though, in that we have enough experienced editors that recognize these attempts to influence/manipulate and deal with the disruption accordingly. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly at this point I'm at WP:PACT with the zombie accounts and the question in my mind is not whether Mr. Smith is involved in soliciting help on his article but rather the mechanism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Slacker13 said he saw an Instagram post by Smith about the recent court settlement, which led them to the article, it's unclear, at least to me, how the other SPAs mysteriously all found their way to the talk page at exactly the same time. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this diff [5] to be rather explicitly evidentiary regarding the canvassing. It's clear that an individual is coordinating this campaign and giving direction... somewhere... to these accounts with regard to messaging. Which brings me back to mechanism. I've looked at Smith's insta and, if he's putting anything there, it's in DMs. There was, in fact, no mention of Wikipedia there that I could find. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So I guess that makes us part of the "bad editors" cabal. Of course, I've been called worse things. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As have I. Many of which have been revision deleted. LOL. I don't sweat someone complaining that I am a "bad editor". But I do think it's an instance where someone was slow getting the memo on messaging at AN/I and gave away the game. While they didn't identify their friend it doesn't take a genius to make an educated guess as to who it was. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake with rollback

Hi Isaidnoway. I just wanted to apologise - I accidently hit rollback when I meant to hit diff on a different article, and rolled back your comment. I realised it as soon as I saw I was on the wrong page, so I rolled myself back. Sorry for the mixup. - Bilby (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll just ignore the notification, if and when I receive one. Sometimes, the notifications are pretty quick, while sometimes it's been a day or two before I'll receive one. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tbanned by parties involved in the underlying dispute. and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Slacker13 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]