User talk:Itstheschist

Welcome!

Hi Itstheschist! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Itstheschist (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello, Itstheschist, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am one person with one account. I am learning about Wikipedia as o have used it over the last year and came across this talk page where rules are seemingly being abused by people with more experience. This does not seem fair. Itstheschist (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Newslinger. An edit that you recently made to Talk:Zak Smith seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This also applies to discussions on talk and project pages. Please do not post LLM-generated comments, especially without proper disclosure. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 22:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm still a person using my own thoughts. Itstheschist (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why was your comment Special:Diff/1307818550 copied and pasted into the discussion in the midst of several other editors with similar editing patterns copying and pasting comments into the discussion that advance the same position as yours? — Newslinger talk 23:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are newer users on Wikipedia not allowed to have opinions on topics they come across? I am still learning but i believe i have a right to express my opinions. Itstheschist (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry § Meatpuppetry (WP:MEAT) policy prohibits using off-wiki coordination to influence the result of a content dispute. Please stop coordinating your on-wiki activity with others off-wiki. — Newslinger talk 23:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thank you for the information. Itstheschist (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello Itstheschist, how did you become aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A friend in real life who is familiar with wikipedia arguments said bad editors often try to use procedures to get rid of other editors in an argument and that I should check. Itstheschist (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mh.

I guess most people "familiar with Wikipedia arguments" are actually Wikipedians with an account. I also guess the advice was far more specific/informed than letting you know that this noticeboard exists and that if you are in an unnamed content dispute, you should generally check if someone started a thread there. Because that's highly unusual advice that won't lead to a result most of the time. So what I think is that someone who knew about this specific conflict and who knew about that specific noticeboard thread has informed you about its existence.

Stop acting as their meatpuppet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak to other humans, and the conversation was not topic- specific. How am i to learn to participate here on wikipedia if i can't comment without being called a meat puppet or bot? Itstheschist (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question is mixing two things up:

Learning by doing, which Wikipedia has a Task Center and a community portal as well as the Teahouse for asking questions for.
Jumping into one specific highly contentious topic and pushing your opinion into every discussion venue related to it.

While the second point is an option, it is less so for new and inexperienced editors whose main contribution to such discussions is usually (and apparently without you being an exception) voicing their agreement with what one or the other side already said. Which is unhelpful but still not prohibited. It becomes a problem when you do so in coordination with others or in response to others' invitation.

If you are genuinely interested in learning, you should aim for the first, not the second point in the list above. Your question implies you would gladly take that option if you knew it existed, so – now that you do – actions speak louder than words. We'll see if you actually become an active Wikipedian over time or became briefly active as a meatpuppet without an actual interest in building the encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is much appreciated. Itstheschist (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting mistaken for an AI

Hi there! On Talk:Zak Smith, you've had comments collapsed by people saying that they're AI-generated, and you've been upset by this. I don't blame you - I'd be pretty cheesed if someone accused me of generating everything with an LLM too - but I did want to point out a couple of things that might be helpful for you in the future?

First, and IMO most important - Wikipedia editors want to hear your opinion in a talkpage conversation. They do not want to hear what an LLM thinks your opinion is. If you're concerned about being persuasive enough or about your English language skills, say so! People are incredibly forgiving. If you're not clear on relevant policies, or they're written in a way that isn't working for you, maybe check them out on the Simple Wikipedia (this might be a good place to start). Or ask about them! The folks at the Teahouse are nice, or if you want you're welcome to wander over to my talkpage and ask stuff.

Next, I'd advise you to have a read-through of WP:AISIGNS, especially WP:AIBOLD and WP:MARKDOWN. A lot of the things in here are present in your edits, which is why people think you're pasting AI-generated content. Again, people don't want to know what an AI thinks your opinion is, they want to know what you think, and why you think that.

Think of your opinions like a cake. AI can be helpful with frosting the cake and putting little deedly-bobs on it to make it look delicious. But in a taste-test, the cake itself is the only thing that matters.

I know I got a bit rambly, but maybe something in this could be helpful to you? Here's hoping! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for this. I was frustrated for sure and am really busy at work so I only get to log in here sporadically. I'll do my best to keep learning. Itstheschist (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Newslinger

Hello, Itstheschist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer.
Message added 19:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 19:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Slacker13 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 17:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13 § 26 August 2025:

Blocked and tagged indefinitely for apparent meatpuppetry. Itstheschist is advised that, if they wish to edit topics unrelated to Zak Smith on Wikipedia, an unblock request would be more likely to be successful if they accept a topic ban from Zak Smith as an unblock condition. — Newslinger talk 17:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a disappointment

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Itstheschist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet or meat puppet. I never used AI generated content, and I don't think it is fair to accuse me of doing so. I became interested in this debate and thought Wikipedia to be an environment where I could be part of the discussion despite being inexperienced with the formatting. The way I have been treated has been a real turn-off to Wikipedia in general. I thought this was a fair and open place for people to share knowledge, but this experience feels like I was caught up in a biased circle-jerk, run by people who spend all day controlling conversations to the exclusion of new users.Itstheschist (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This and this are very clearly AI-generated. Even if you are neither a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet, you were very clearly canvassed into the discussion on Zak Smith. Wikipedia is a fair and open place for people to share knowledge. It is not a place to engage in reputation management on behalf of your favorite celebrities. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Would you agree to a topic ban from the topic of Zak Smith? If so, what will you edit about instead? 331dot (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]