User talk:Infinity Knight

Hi Infinity Knight! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the guy who edited the plot of Bhramam multiple times as the one which keeps getting reverted to is horrible in explanation and has extremely bad grammar. Wikipedia has a notice that plots of films should be short and crisp for the reader to understand. Please compare my plot and the other plot (reverted one) and check which is better Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.1.229 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bubungan dua belas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit and sorry for messing it up as I was trying to remove the Danielair entry and not your correction. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kota Batu, Brunei-Muara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muhammad Hassan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hong Kong films of 1980, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page As Tears Go By. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Infinity Knight. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about the deletion discussion about Apply Zimbabwe. It was very polite of you.

Tanakachingonzo (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J'as. He is W'afriques. Thank you.

woTias prob Vegas waterhelio. 205.189.94.9 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Infinity Knight. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dura, Hebron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eshkol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Infinity Knight. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Infinity Knight: The above notifies you that articles like Mondoweiss are under discretionary sanctions. That requires editors to focus on article content and, if responding in a discussion, to respond substantively to points raised. Editors who are unable to collaborate, or who are unable to accept a consensus, may be topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Thank you for the warning. Could you provide specific diffs so I could improve my editing?

I received my first warning a year ago about the discretionary sanctions for rasing a BLP concern. here.

Regarding the current warning. I asked a question here: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#ONUS:_procedural_question. According to User:Blueboar Usually, however, the correct conclusion is “no consensus”… which means both “sides” in the debate may have to compromise a bit. Do you see consensus in the Mondoweiss discussion? Infinity Knight (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage in a sealioning exercise. If you are unable to work out what I'm talking about, a topic ban might be only solution because I'm clearly talking about recent activity at the linked article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing your edit at Talk:Mondoweiss. However, and particularly for a topic under discretionary sanctions, comments should be signed and should engage with the discussion. Your fixed comment consists of three copy/pastes of comments made by another editor two weeks ago, and it follows "If you have a proposal to make, make it." The proper way to respond to such a comment would be to briefly state what your proposal is (an actionable and clear proposal to improve the article by removing/adding/changing text). If that proposal is stated elsewhere, you should identify it. Your previous comment from two days ago (by the way, we are supposed to use {{pb}}, not <p>) is equally opaque. Comments must be clear—are you just chatting or you supporting a specific editing proposal? The wording has now been changed, but if you are concerned that "webzine not found in the source" you should give a clue how you would fix that. In the same way, I can't tell what you intended with the rest of that comment. Perhaps it means something to those familiar with the topic but it looks like a braindump with no connection to the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for chiming in, Johnuniq. Let me quote Blueboar from here A lot depends on the reasons given for the various opinions. I have seen five well reasoned, policy based arguments in opposition to an addition out-weigh ten poorly reasoned “I just like it” arguments for inclusion… and five well reasoned arguments for inclusion out weigh ten “I don’t like it” arguments for exclusion.. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might not be reading the situation clearly so let me put it more directly. The above discretionary sanctions notice alerts you to the fact that special procedures apply to the topic. Even if that were not the case, it is necessary that editors engage in a clear manner on article talk pages. Editors who are unable to do that will be topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am aware of the discretionary sanctions. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Si.427 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Si.427 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Will Orrick (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[1]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Shaqdi, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shaqdi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaqdi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shaqdi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaqdi (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be adding AI generated stuff to Talk pages.[2] Tell me about it ... Bon courage (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also concerned about [3][4][5][6][7][8][9], all of which are rated as "unclear" or "likely AI-generated" by OpenAI's classifier, unlike other long comments in those threads. Infinity Knight, if this is true, what were you thinking? Why would we want to read chatbot outputs? DFlhb (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having concerns about comments that have been evaluated by OpenAI's classifier as "unclear" or "likely AI-generated" is a reasonable position to hold. It's worth noting that while some comments may have been improved through the use of automatic tools, the responsibility for the content on Wikipedia lies with human editors and not merely their spell or grammar checkers. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the stuff you're posting is useless. Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My dear, life is full of surprises. You'll be surprised by the challenges and obstacles you will face, but also by the opportunities that will come your way. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading your post on user:SMcCandlish's talk titled "Greetings". You said: "Hello there. I hope it's okay for me to leave a message on your talk page. I just wanted to mention ...". And then he says you were dancing?! Has he been disrespectful else where? He doesn't want me to post on his talk page otherwise I would have mentioned you. Iterresise (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pinging me to this? If the two of you feel trying to pillory me, just get on with it. There are clear instructions at the top of WP:ANI. But you should have a good read of WP:BOOMERANG first. Someone disagreeing with your proposals and being critical of your behavior here is not you being attacked, and everyone on this site (except apparently you) already understands this very well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a comment of mine, kindly restore it. Also you should not be moving or substantially modifying comments that have been responded to. nableezy - 14:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the confusion. Could you please direct me to the specific difference or edit you're referring to? Which comment of yours did I delete and from where? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

here. nableezy - 14:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that OK? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well now youve made it so Im replying to nobody in particular. Kindly put your original comment back where it was. And my reply as well. nableezy - 14:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion; it's my first time using the merge tool. I think the changes were made simultaneously, so the order is a bit unclear. Should I move them again, and if so, where would you like them? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned because you have repeatedly attempted to weaponize administrative processes within the topic area, after a previous warning:

1. Attempt to sanction topic-area opponent for policy-compliant edit (I AGF on this one, but presented for context)
2. Warned by Bishonen for civil POV-pushing in an attempt to sanction a topic-area opponent
3. Attempt to sanction the same opponent as in (1), under the same misapplication of policy, for conduct that was even less objectionable than the first time.
4. More selective misapplication of policy, this time against the admin who told you that you were wrong in (3)

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin - I have some concerns about this action.

It seems to me that reasons (1) and (3) ought more properly to be construed as asking for advice/comment, not asking you to take some kind of action against another editor. The quoted text under reason (4) says that the administrator in question might seem to be doing certain things. It's a conditional statement which I'd hardly call a wilful misrepresentation of policy. Ironically, it may just be uncivil.

We are also potentially stretching the meaning of 'uninvolved administrator' when the user's comments in (1) and (3) were directed to you, and you participated in the conversation in (4) in opposition to the opinion offered by @Infinity Knight.

Finally, there is a real question about whether any of the four reasons cited actually fall within Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Definition of the "area of conflict". To my reading they do not, though granted, I am relatively new here. Riposte97 (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your second appeal to AE. I would like to ensure that you are aware that, while there is an appeals process, it is expected that it will be used within reason. Appealing little more than a week after your prior appeal was declined does not qualify as "within reason". It is normally expected that if an appeal is declined, an editor will wait a minimum of six months prior to another attempt. I would strongly advise that you take that time to consider how you might make a more convincing request. If you file more appeals before that time has elapsed, which in this case would be prior to 12 May 2024, it is very likely that it will be considered disruptive and handled accordingly. So, I very much encourage you not to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting banned indefinitely from discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict due to my comments does seem pretty absurd. I'm not entirely sure if my points were considered, which is why I decided to appeal. The appeal decisions exhibited a deficiency in an evidence-based approach, predominantly depending on opinions and subjective arguments rather than being rooted in verifiable and factual information. There is no indication that the closing administrator reviewed the provided diffs. The ongoing need for revising versions of the topic remedies could suggest that administrative intervention isn't consistently helpful and doesn't seem to work overall. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of comment we frequently hear from banned or blocked editors. Besides being "but I'm not guilty, gov" it shows your inexperience and thus lack of knowledge and IMHO the correctness of the decision. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got any signs of someone trying to put the smackdown on a rival in the topic or playing fast and loose with the rules in those diffs? Still waiting for an answer on that one. I've seen another admin, Doug's probably crossed paths with them, pulling some sketchy moves with their powers. When it comes to "frequency", I'd reckon a little crew that's all tight-knit would have each other's backs ([10] [11]). Long story short, the whole process doesn't seem to be based on any real evidence. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to set aside the accusation that I was somehow biased because I provided neutral clarification in response to an AN/I post you made a year ago, and focus on what you're saying about Zero0000: I want to be clear, Infinity Knight, that while there is a limited exception to bans for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution", attempting to relitigate old grudges within the topic area does not fall under that. I understand that you're upset by how things have gone, and we traditionally give recently-banned users a bit of wiggle room to vent. But that has its limit, so you can consider this your first and last warning. If you wish to continue editing here, please find something to edit about other than the Arab-Israeli conflict. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, check it out—this editor's got an issue with an admin, then another admin steps in to back them up, and bam, the editor gets hit with a ban. You gotta wonder, doesn't that kinda seem like payback? Infinity Knight (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but if you think I have any problem challenging another admin when I feel they've made a mistake, you should probably look through my own history. But your conduct here is just convincing me further that the decision made was correct. As I've told to many editors subject to remedies like topic bans, you aren't required to agree with it, but you are required to abide by it. You can make a new appeal in six months (or a bit less than that now). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep on not acknowledging the evidence (diff) that's been laid out. No kidding, I was totally sincere when I said Tamzin shines bright through her poem [12] , and I genuinely wished her nothing but sunny days ahead [13]. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I took that as genuine, Infinity Knight. I have nothing against you as a person. I have nothing against most of the people I've sanctioned under ARBPIA, on either side. It's a very difficult time in the world, and many communities and many individuals are being pushed to their breaking point over the matter of Israel and Palestine. I see that every day among Zionist friends and pro-Palestinian friends alike. Between the rawness of the recent traumas and the proliferation of propaganda, I really can't blame people for having strong feelings. But the admin team has been tasked by ArbCom with keeping the peace in the topic area, and so that's what I'm doing, and what Seraphimblade is doing, and what Doug is doing. It's our own kind of tikkun olam: We can't solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we can't mend the souls of the people it affects directly and indirectly, but we can do our best at making sure discussions tend in the direction of making the encyclopedia better, and in turn bringing humanity the best information available. (And inevitably, the people we sanction will feel they were making the encyclopedia better, but that's the nature of the beast.)

I do hope to see you around, editing other topics. I like that you're someone who says kind things to people—not because I'm a sucker for flattery, but because that's just not something we see enough of in this community. We need more niceness. I try to bring that niceness to the wiki, but I don't always succeed, and there are some things like TBANning or blocking people where I'm always going to seem like a bitch no matter how hard I try. But one thing I try to remind people who've been TBANned is, this means no one wanted to indef you. I'm not afraid to block an experienced editor if I think it's what's best for the 'pedia; I've done so to much "bigger names" in the past. But I didn't feel that here, and apparently no one else did either. You have something to offer the project, just maybe not about this topic, not at this time. In six months, a year, whenever, I'd love the chance to support an unban request. With the utmost sincerity, few things make me happier than getting to lift a sanction I've imposed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bummer, but there's no solid process for checking up on how administrators behave because they're the ones doing the reviewing themselves. The truth is, my ban got set off by my comment on the admin's sketchy behavior ([14]). Infinity Knight (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree that we have inadequate processes for reviewing admin misconduct, but that's a conclusion I've reached in the course of bringing three admins to ArbCom and getting them desysopped, as well as contributing evidence for two other desysops, not to mention times I've called out other admins that were resolved short of ArbCom. I hope that establishes that I'm not afraid to stand against other admins when I feel they've violated policy. This, simply, was not such a case. But all of that is neither here nor there, and discussing it further still toes the line of your topic ban. If you do want to talk more about admin accountability, feel free to email me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good on my end, Tamzin. Is slapping a ban on an editor for commenting on admin behavior the right move? Look, you've admitted that you weren't certain about the right response, but you were convinced that I was trying to "weaponize Wikipedia processes". Just so we're clear, that wasn't my intention. The problem is, administrators are routinely banning contributors who are clearly making a positive impact, and then they're calling these editors a waste of time. It's not doing any favors for Wikipedia. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you expect to have an eventual appeal accepted, you will need to start looking at your own behavior instead of blaming admins or imagined process failures. You will need to examine why your impact was not making an overall positive impact in the eyes of many. That's my one comment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective, but it seems like we're not quite on the same page here. Everything in the evidence (diffs) I gave is legit. But the whole "weaponizing" thing? That's the imaginary part. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to that opinion. But your appeal has been declined, twice, and continuing to complain about the matter you were banned over is, obviously, a violation of that ban. The only place left where it would be appropriate to discuss this is as part of a last-resort ban appeal at WP:ARCA, although I can't say I'd recommend that. Please just drop it and find something else to edit about. I don't particularly want to block you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 21:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tamzin, you're really sticking to the whole "weaponizing" thing, huh? Truth is, you're the one working forces. No need to pretend like what I'm saying is being looked at without bias or even looked at period. [15] -> [16]. I didn't catch your name in the earlier talk about the admin going all rogue. According to the diff provided it took you 15 mins [17] -> [18] to jump in order to advocate for misuse of administrative powers, you were evidently the first one to pop up. Seems only fair to assume—this editor's got an issue with an admin, then another admin steps in to back them up, and bam, the editor gets hit with a ban. "Retaliatory finding without merit" as you put it. Makes you think, doesn't it? Infinity Knight (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade or @Doug Weller: I learned my lesson a while ago that sanctioning a user over comments that include insults against oneself is usually a bad idea, even when it falls on the right side of WP:INVOLVED. I don't actually give a damn about whatever IK wants to accuse me of; I've been called far worse. But I do think I've been pretty clear here that continuing to litigate this is a TBAN violation, and yet here we are. Could one of you please assess if further sanctions are necessary? Thanks. (CYA note: Again, not INVOLVED, and I reserve the right to act in an administrative capacity in this case—just recusing with respect to these particular comments to avoid an appearance of impropriety.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, @Tamzin. I've mentioned this before, and it's important to emphasize that I want nothing but happiness and positivity for you. Sometimes, facing the truth can be challenging, truth hurts, as Ben Finegold aptly puts it. My perspective is based on common sense and a sincere desire for your well-being. There's no need to pretend that your actions went unnoticed by uninvolved editors—they expressed their concerns with We are also potentially stretching the meaning of 'uninvolved administrator' when the user's comments in (1) and (3) were directed to you, and you participated in the conversation in (4) in opposition to the opinion offered by @Infinity Knight. And now there is a new diff. Let's continue to communicate openly and work together for the best possible outcome. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and discussions do not have to go on until everyone is happy. You are welcome to believe whatever it is that this discussion is about, but the discussion itself must stop now. I will indefinitely block you if it continues. Either find something that helps develop articles (articles not covered by a topic ban) or find another website. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence of harassment on my talk page from this administrator in the past. Concerning this incident, an impartial editor commented with I've read through the ArbCom remedies, and frankly, the ban is way out of line. There is just no authority for it. Sysops can only invoke the sanctions if certain conditions are met. They were obviously not met here. on the talk page of the administrator in question. Is this an appropriate way to treat volunteers who dedicate their time to the project? Infinity Knight (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please regard the above as your last word. Explanations for how to appeal the current sanctions are on this page (search for "using the process described here"). If you want advice regarding my intention to block you indefinitely if you continue this discussion on this page or any other, ask at WP:AN but read WP:BOOMERANG first. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Infinity Knight (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for Violating your topic ban on your user talk page, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 36 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. In addition, your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) then contact the Arbitration Committee through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if your email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Galobtter (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

InfinityKnight, did you use an LLM to create the article Interpretations of Pandora's box in Greek mythology? On a spot check, the article appears to make fabricated claims unsupported by the cited sources. Can you, for example, provide the exact quote from the source Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: panacea or Pandora's box? that supports the following text that you added to the article:

"James, Frances C., and Charles E. McCulloch discuss the role and agency of Pandora in opening the box. They explain that Pandora's role is often seen as passive as she is usually depicted as simply opening the box and allowing all of the evils to escape. However, the authors argue that this interpretation is a confusion between the objectives of the method (multivariate analysis) and the objectives of the researcher. They state that Pandora's role should be seen as active, as she made a conscious decision to open the box, and her agency in doing so is significant."

As far as I can tell on a quick browse-through, the source contains no such discussion and is tangential to the purported subject of the article. Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homeric laughter was also written using AI. I've run text through several AI detectors, there's no doubt. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to have links to ones in other languages but the other articles seem to be about something different, so it might be a botched attempt at using AI to translate.★Trekker (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about IK using a chat bot to generate edits further up the page here. What I noticed a while back is that IK's responses in that thread also sound like they were written by a chat bot. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are. Honestly, seems half like a breaching experiment. nableezy - 17:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was too blatant (and the diffs I linked above were even moreso) DFlhb (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Knight, unless a cogent explanation for your adding apparently false claims and citations to wikipedia is available, a block or other sanctions would be warranted. So I would encourage you to address the concerns raised here as soon as possible... and in non-AI generated words. Please ping me when you do so. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please don't remove the ai tags and give us this no evidence nonsense. ltbdl (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledge that the quote and the mentioned source above are not ideal, James, Frances C., and Charles E. McCulloch discuss the potential misuse of multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics, likening it to Pandora's box due to the risks associated with interpretability judgments. The authors acknowledge the negative aspects, agreeing with criticisms that multivariate methods have led to challenges, attributing this, in part, to a history of careless applications and interpretations. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

everyone can tell you're using chatgpt for your responses, mate. ltbdl (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the James, Frances C., and Charles E. McCulloch, and see here. Are there any additional concerns regarding the content? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why did you use chatgpt (or something similar) to make "your" comments and articles? ltbdl (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already addressed it here. Are there any additional concerns regarding the content? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, you didn't, you said:

Having concerns about comments that have been evaluated by OpenAI's classifier as "unclear" or "likely AI-generated" is a reasonable position to hold. It's worth noting that while some comments may have been improved through the use of automatic tools, the responsibility for the content on Wikipedia lies with human editors and not merely their spell or grammar checkers.

which addresses nothing.

i won't even get into the second comment. ltbdl (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the responsibility for the content on Wikipedia lies with human editors and not merely their spell or grammar checkers. I'm open to discussing any content-related issues that may arise. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

answer my question. ltbdl (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltbdl, I've already done so multiple times. If you come across any inaccuracies, errors may occur, so please inform me. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their last statement at Template:Did you know nominations/Homeric laughter was clearly AI written:"According to my understanding, Wikipedia's content policy emphasizes accurately representing reliable sources with a neutral point of view. When engaging in rephrasing, it is essential to adhere to content policies, including maintaining verifiability, avoiding original research, providing proper citations, refraining from synthesizing information, and preventing plagiarism. Infinity Knight" And of course one of the issues with this editor's articles is their editing as it ignores all of that. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last nail: SPI O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]