User talk:Deepfriedokra

• If anyone claims to be my "doppelganger" or "clone," please block on sight
• If you need page protection, please report at WP:RfPP
• Any admin should feel free to undo an admin action of mine without prior discussion. A ping would be nice. I unblock high-risk appellants. Sometimes it does not work out. It would not be wheel-warring to reblock the recidivistic among them.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Start a new discussion thread

User talk:Deepfriedokra/archives

Ima be honest with you--I don't know how that system works, what all the buttons do, and what I could contribute there... Drmies (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: no problem. It'a not a very good appeal. "I was blocked by mistake." Really? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I feel whenever I look at it. I figure I'll accidentally send a comment to the appellant instead of other admins, or unblock on accident. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah exactly! I clicked on "Checkuser" real quick, but it was for the blocked person to place a CU request, I think. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on one of the buttons that isn't "reserve" and it instantly performed an action and archived the review so I admit to being kind of scared of it. If you don't reserve and just type a comment in the box at the bottom, you're going to send one of those green-text admin-only comments, which is safe. -- asilvering (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha this is getting kind of funny--I thought I was the only one here who didn't get it, like a Luddite. But also, "blocked accidentally", sure--but if we take the complaint seriously, I don't know what my role is: I'm not going to run CU again and say "yeah I blocked this one and a dozen others at the same time". Drmies (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he cannot come up with a sensible reply, I just give him the "did not address template" and decline. Most are like that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deepfriedokra. (Love the username, by the way). I'm looking through old talkpage archives, and I came across User talk:Yezzido and noticed you declined their UTRS appeal. Obviously I know there's limits to what you can say here. I also know this was a year ago, but to recap real quik - it seems like thee went and added a metric ton of wikilinks to Nigerian university articles. (Specifically, they seemed to be linking different fields of study to their articles. Some of these links seem reasonable, some probably go against the MOS). They were warned at 13:16 on 2023-04-29, and stopped for 24 hours. They edited about 10 more articles over the next three days, adding more wikilinks. About a day after their last edit, a different user gave them a uw-vandalism4 warning. 10 minutes later, an admin blocked them as NOTHERE. (user had not edited in those 10 minutes). They filed a pretty generic "I didn't realize I was being disruptive" unblock request, got the generic "this is inadequate" response back - and then apparently filed an unblock through UTRS, which you marked as closed. (Am I right to read that as "declined"?)

Again, I know there's limits to what you can say (and I don't quite know where those limits are), but an indef NOTHERE block for relatively minor MOS violations after (essentially) one warning feels relatively harsh. Is there any light you can shed on this, even if it's to point out a pattern in their edits that I haven't seen? (We have some weird LTAs. I'm currently cleaning up after an unregistered user who liked to add close paraphrasing and citation needed tags to Serbian articles.) Again, just curious more than anything.

Also, UTRS appeals can be filed by people who haven't had their talk page access yanked? You learn something new everyday. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: (For talk page watchers, this was UTRS appeal #78016.) The appeal itself was LLM generated and did not actually meaningfully address the reasons for the block. Having said that, we generally send unblock requests of those who have talk page access, in which there is no private information, back to the talk page so the appeal can be made in view of the community. (Yes, anyone can open a UTRS ticket, even imposters.) I agree that "not here to build an encyclopedia" does not really say anything informative. I have grown to prefer more specific block rationales, such as "promotional editing." Or "WP:CIR." For the most part, we block spammers on sight, but a glance at the talk page tells me it was overlinking and not spamming. Despite the user's inability to heed good advice, I would not have made an indefinite block on the first block. As you know, progressive blocks are better for simple disruption (and this just looks like over enthusiasm) The blocking admin is @Bbb23:. Have you asked him about this block?

Hopefully, I covered everything and hopefully my voice to text didn't change anything after I proofread. BTW, when will you run for adminship? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Tamzin:, who has said interesting things about admin culture. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Yamla:, who made the initial decline, for his thoughts. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this user ever made an unblock request (written in their own words) committing to refraining from overlinking, I'd support their unblock. Nothing I've seen so far indicates they understand the problem here. They were warned and just kept right on doing it. Look, that's not at all unusual. Lots of users stampede across our policies and guidelines until blocked, then they step back and actually take the time to read the policies. Heck, a month or so back, there was a user who kept on assuring us that blatantly obviously unreliable sources met WP:RS. We kept on saying, No they don't, please go and actually read WP:RS. After about four or five people had said that and after this user kept on assuring us the sources met WP:RS, the user finally actually read the guideline. They then pointed out how their sources didn't meet WP:RS and they hadn't actually read the guideline past the introductory paragraph. Anyway, my point is, I think this user hasn't yet had their Ah ha! moment. Once they do, great. Let's welcome them back. But not before. --Yamla (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Yamla. These were textbook violations of OVERLINK, but the user apparently never read the textbook or even the summary, not even after being warned and reverted. And those AI-generated unblocks, we see those more and more, and we just cannot take them seriously. So I see nothing wrong with the block, and I agree that an unblock would be fine if certain conditions were met, but these are the most basic of conditions: write, not generate, an unblock request that shows you realize you now understand which guidelines were broken. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on my earlier reply, blocks are preventative and non punitive. A short duration has the disadvantage that the disruption might resume once the block has expired. An indefinite duration block has the disadvantage of the risk of alienating a potentially constructive user. Of course, indefinite is not infinite, and an indefinite block can be unblocked once the reasons for the block have been adequately addressed. Hindsight vision is 20/20, and the user's inability to adequately address the reasons for the block argues against the usefulness of a short duration block for this user. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is a relevant discussion of admin culture HERE. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The facts about the UTRS system are actually really interesting - the imposters thing especially. Thank you for explaining, that was really informative. Their original appeal seemed more human-written and authentic, so I'm guessing they probably panicked after twelve hours of no response, didn't realise they'd made a malformed request, and thought they'd have a better chance if somebody else wrote the unblock appeal. (I don't think English is their native language - which makes the overlinking thing even trickier to grasp. "Everyday word" means something very different to an American college graduate than it does to a somebody who speaks English as a second language! Heck, I'm a native English speaker- but back when I was editing as an IP, I definitely got rvv-ed for linking terms I didn't think were common, but a recent changes patroller did. To this day, I'm still paranoid about adding wikilinks sometimes because of those experienced. Bad vandalism warnings are very scary lol. )

I've been looking at a few other NOTEHERE/disruptive editing blocks made after one overlinking warning. I'm definitely straying off topic here, but a very large part of me has always wondered why don't admins make use of the wonderful pblock function? A few of these editors used edit requests to expand articles, and it's a real shame they were cut off from that.

But, on a completely different note- @Drmies, looking at your endoresement, can I convince you to join the copyright side of the project some day to do blocks? We have cookies! But seriously, I typically have to wait at least three or four times before I consider ANI somebody for blatant copy-pasting. Even most copyright admins will often wait for five or six warnings, because they don't want to be too bitey! And those are over issues we have to take months to years to fix, not for stuff that's solvable with a literal click of a button haha. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without being too picky, IMO overlinking is not vandalism until it becomes seriously disruptive, and editors are warned and ignore the warnings (I say that because you said "rvv-ed"). I can't speak on the p-block issue in general: there are lots of valuables, and I don't think I've seen editors who are blatant overlinkers who also delve into content and place edit requests. In such a case a p-block for article space might be helpful, but I think it's rare because in general overlinkers like the one we're talking about aren't "fluent" enough in all the areas to place such requests. As for copyright--I've done some of that, and worked on a couple of cases that I think may have been listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, but to clean up, long after the block. I can't remember the last time I blocked someone for copyright violations; I know I have, but they weren't the big violators, they were the "simple" ones, like you describe. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if I would have blocked this user, I would have given them a partial block with a clear explanation as to why, and a clear link to the ANI thread. If that did not work, then a not partial block could have followed. I agree that partial blocks are under utilized. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I am much more likely to question blocks than I was back then -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this might be a case of "Nigerians sound like chatGPT when they're being overpolite". I give it 50:50 that UTRS unblock was human-written. Out of curiosity, I ran it through gptzero, which agrees with my vibes - it thinks it's more likely to be AI than not, but only barely. -- asilvering (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Interesting. I'm giving up on trying to detect LLM. I'll just go with vacuous though high-sounding. And User:Deepfriedokra/dna (Some appellants think LLM does a better job writing an appeal, not recognizing the vacuity.) 😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, we're only going to get more LLM slop until OpenAI goes under and takes the whole sector with it, so at this point if you think it's LLM, it probably is. -- asilvering (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just thought I'll share a little idea with you. Do you think I could shift a pair of closing brackets three words back here? --CiaPan (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THX. Done CiaPan (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm getting in touch with you about a notice. Editing pages is pretty easy, but I'm still figuring out how to navigate the rest, so I'm sorry if this isn't the correct place to respond. I've seen notices and some complaints, so first I should say nothing is intentionally nefarious. As far as the military edits go, I've figured that out, based on MOS:ICONDECORATION and MOS:FLAGCRUFT, so I've since ceased. I'm from Volusia and still technically have my residency there, so I do feel responsible and knowledgeable about the topics, however, after overwhelming pushback, I was clearly wrong. I don't work for any politicians nor am I associated with any, but I do have people I find interesting and think have made an impact locally and should be included, but I get that requires a certain threshold and I was turned down. I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble or get myself blocked. Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy until the past 2 days or so and I haven't had any serious issues that I'm aware of since. I've made many edits since and most have been checked by Eyer. Happy to continue talking if needed! ZebulonMorn (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @ZebulonMorn: Personal knowledge is not verifiable to our readers or editors and therefore not acceptable, even if you're an Expert. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. All information must be sourced appropriately. ZebulonMorn (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember DeaconShotFire? Well now this. With two unban-to-reblock speedrun contenders, I'm starting to get the sense that you and I are bad luck charms. Or maybe just patron saints of lost causes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I should light a candle to St. Jude. My track record with these is discouraging, but the few successes are rewarding. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin:🤦. I'm neurodivergent in that I am often tone-deaf emotionally and tend toward obsessive compulsion (I guess Asperger's is deprecated.) The OCD is useful in repetitive tasks like RCP. I guess some people suffer from it in more disruptive ways. Sad really. I guess he was seized by an irresistible impulse. So many of our recidivists are . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is built by neurodivergent people, and we're pretty good at filtering out disruption by neurotypical people, because we can smell it when they try to act like us but fail. Disruptive neurodivergent people, on the other hand... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make me laugh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Tamzin says "Wikipedia is built by neurodivergent people", and there's a good deal of truth in that. And yet a lot of people fail to fit in because of their neurodivergence, and eventually leave or are blocked or even banned. There's probably a potential research project there: defining the boundary between neurodivergence which makes one ideally suited to being a typical Wikipedia editor or even administrator, and neurodivergence which makes one totally unsuited to being a Wikipedia editor, so that any attempt to be one will end in tears. JBW (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JBW:One must channel it constructively while remaining mindful. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the "Activism" section a bit; it certainly wasn't vandalism, but did seem a bit biased in tone. Per WP:WEIGHT, I'm wondering if it belongs on her page at all; her community activities are not what she's primarily notable for; the citations include quotes from her but are not focused on her. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you have email. There is a relevant UTRS ticket about this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the UTRS request. I'll respond there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I suppose a sufficiently advanced incompatibility would be indistinguishable from trolling." Very well expressed, and totally apt in this case. I actually think it very likely that what we are seeing is neither simply bad faith trolling nor simply good faith failure to fit in, but a much more complex situation where aspects of those two concepts overlap and are inextricably intertwined, making them indeed indistinguishable. JBW (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Thanks. I thought your decline, as always, struck the nail firmly and squarely on the head. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed the links to wiki-education pages on your userpage, but the noticeboard didn't seem to be active. I suppose I could post there first, but oh well. I am having some issues with students in UMich class adding semi-sourced edits to LGBTQ+ media and Media portrayal of LGBTQ people and wanted to know if there was some way to escalate the situation if any more disruptive material is added to other articles.

Thanks!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some more diffs of people in the class, and they are better than nothing, but still add a lot of biased, semi-cited material to the pages.

Example diffs from other articles, found from Students -> random student -> article -> history:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foster_care&diff=1261524664&oldid=1255402058
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender_pregnancy&diff=1261160646&oldid=1248453970

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JuxtaposedJacob: I'd post to the WikiEd notice board first. I think they watch it. Then, if no respnse, post to WP:ANI Hope that helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Have a nice night!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 07:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JuxtaposedJacob: Also. If they are editing in a WP:CTOP area, give anyone making inappropriate edits a {{{Contentious topics/alert/first}}} notice. Maybe a talk page watcher has a better idea? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will do. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 08:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user's page that you restored was more promotional like and in my opinion, did qualify for speedy deletion. It has a promotional tone and was made by the actual business. Please reconsider your decision to draftify this "article". 2603:8080:4300:4912:84A4:BEF0:25:3D4E (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not unsalvageable. Not wholly promotional. Thanks. Might want to log in to edit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and was not tagged G11. Just U5. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You commented that this user was not eligible to file an admin recall petition. There are probably at least two reasons why this user is not eligible to file a recall petition. They weren't an auto-confirmed user at the time of filing. I didn't check whether the rules require extended-confirmed status, but that doesn't matter. Second, you and I both know that they are almost certainly blocked under their original account. They may wind up being changed from a NOTHERE block to a CU block in the next 90 days if they get caught up in another check. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

★Trekker (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]