User talk:RandomEditor6772314

Hi RandomEditor6772314! I noticed your contributions to Sexual selection and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

[...] [Deleted by host because it's old now, and to clear space on Talk page]

Happy editing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, are you using AI chatbots for your editing? If so, you should read through the information at Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence resources. If not, no problem. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely NOT, not in any way whatsoever, NEVER have I used one (in any site, or for any purpose, ever). "Chatbots", "AI", and LLMs, are garbage mass-theft machines. The output is garbage, and the theft ("training" data) is an unethical scam and disgrace.

As a side note: I want to point out that if my editing or comments "looks like a chatbot", well, we're getting into really unpleasant waters since I am probably one of the most militantly anti-AI people you would ever meet. In other words, we both now know that you thought/suspected a 100% human (absolutely 0% AI whatsoever) looked like AI, so, uh... the paranoia is only going to worse in the future.

Now I want to ask you what bland(? tedious(?) fluffy(?) low-substance(?) thing I wrote that made you think it was AI. But instead of asking that, I'll just say: I definitely have way more energy and interest in writing/criticizing/examining crap on the internet than most people, exhaustively, so I assume it was something about that vibe that made you think "AI". But no, I'm the real thing: wordy human. (And I've usually used a dry tone, I guess, in wiki writing?) RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

You just happen to have a writing style similar to chatbots. You use lots of bold, often write really long edit summaries, and in some cases you have accidentally used *Markdown* for italics. All of these are things typical of AI chatbots. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I bold some of the words I think are most important, for people "perusing" and the kind of people who complain about "a lot of words" (etc). If their eyeballs only see one thing, or need sign-posting, well.

Accidental markdown... I've typed a ton of comments on reddit, and (relatively) few on wikipedia.

Long edit summaries, personally I dislike short summaries, I want to be able to get a picture of what someone actually did in the text, and see the posture (so to speak), without having to scroll/parse through the 'diff'. Especially with how incompetent and deceitful many wiki users are.

I think you should be using things like 1) slop fluff phrasing and empty cliches 2) comments that are basically *exactly like* some other comment 3) account history (etc) as the big clues, rather than bold or markdown mistakes. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I usually write long edit summaries as well. Sorry for the inconvenience! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Rihanna, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I referred to people's comments and arguments, not to themselves or to their person (which is the definition of "personal attack").

A personal attack does not mean a critical comment toward a person about their public comments and arguments. "Comment on content, not on other contributors or people" is exactly what I did. I think you might be confused about the nature of "Reply" which has to be directed to a person, though I was clearly talking about and criticizing the flawed logic in posted words/comments?

RandomEditor6772314 (talk) RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now you're accusing other editors of being racist. Final final warning now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Now you're accusing other editors of being racist. Final final warning now"

It's obviously not bannable, or a violation of wikipedia rules, to state a belief that an action was racist, or state a belief that a motivation appears to show racial disparity (especially after due consideration of basic facts of the disparity). Can you please link me to a page about how to report admins who make threats for behavior that is not against any rule? That's a serious problem, and I assume there are admins who will treat it seriously.

Your comment is threatening about XYZ ("stating a belief that something was racist"), which is not a violation of anything, and also claiming that it's a continuation or escalation of ABC ("personal attacks")...which I never did, and which is not related to XYZ at all.RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I only saw your edits from the Rihanna talk page, but it is clear you are passionate about editing and getting things right. However, I noticed that you are mostly focused on policy and talk pages. I suggest you focus more on working on articles, and find projects that inspire you, rather than getting into contentious discussions on talk pages (that you might not know much about). I know that my time on this project feels much more productive when I am expanding articles. Feel free to revert or remove this if you want to ignore my advice. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear: are you someone who reverted my policy edit somewhere?

"I noticed that you are mostly focused on policy and talk pages. I suggest you focus more on working on articles, and find projects that inspire you"

Policy and talk pages inspire me. They are formative and important for wikipedia. (Also, I have created a bunch of extremely high quality articles too, far beyond the squib/starter/stub quality of most new pages. I've also done substantial high-quality revisions and expansions of sub-par articles.) Confused editors can revert a good edit, and no one will ever fix it, but an explicit discussion (a Talk page for article or policy) can actually help future improvements in a visible way that is, maybe, less easy for someone to nuke for poorly considered inarticulable reasons.

"rather than getting into contentious discussions on talk pages (that you might not know much about)."

Contentious discussions are the ones that need to happen. And I only get involved when I do "know about it." The unfortunate reality is, many policy points are poorly described and don't clearly accomplish the intent of the policy.

RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RandomEditor6772314. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @RandomEditor6772314, I highly recommend that you participate in the ANI discussion, you have every right to be involved in a discussion about your editing and any possible sanctions that may arise as a result.

If you don't join in, then decisions will be made without you having any say in what happens to your own account. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I ignored the discussion because I assumed any responsible admins reviewing the case would see I did not violate "Harassment" or "Personal attacks" rules, etc. I criticize text, sometimes. The behavior the mod was talking about was nothing like what is described on the rule pages (which are good rules), and their words had almost no relation to anything I said.

Is this a known problem, where admins give out a wrongful Permanent Bans for a small amount of alleged "Idle complaining", which is not harassment, is not a personal attack, is not a bannable rule violation, and wasn't meaningfully true in substance or proportion? I.e. a so-called "idle complaint" mixed in with 100 sentences of explanatory detail.

RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RandomEditor6772314 incivility. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand. The link doesn't show me any discussion or issue about me. I also CTRL F'ed on that page for my username, to make sure I'm not missing anything. Can you give a specific link to what the...charges (feels weird to say that) were or the specific discussion?

Also the policy page list of Incivility examples is nothing like anything I have ever done or said on wikipedia. Did a person claim that because I attacked an argument or say that it was "rude" to explain why a statement is false. I've certainly done that many times. I don't get it, and I don't see any info.

Also a ban of a few hours(?) doesn't fit with what I'm seeing on the Incivility policy list behavior examples. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in The Odyssey (2026 film). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 15:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It appears that you have been canvassing—notifying a biased selection of users of an ongoing community discussion about Talk:The Odyssey (2026 film)—which may undermine Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building. While helpful notices are allowed, they should be limited, nonpartisan, and neutral. They should not be spammed, support one point of view or side of a debate, or be selectively sent to those who may agree with you. Thank you. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I clearly explained all the reasons why that wasn't Canvassing, and also how the person I asked *had already gone on record as supporting YOUR position (they took paragraph text for granted)*. This is really clear from a basic check of the exchange, and what they said, and the fact that it was only one, and the fact that they were obviously base-line qualified to have some concept of Readability/usefulness. The fact that you've framed that as canvassing suggests that your position is not about Readability. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Albanian iso-polyphony, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ison was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello I'm Mustbeotherwise. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Some of your recent edits to the article Diarra Kilpatrick feel like they may not be neutral. Even when cited from a reliable source, quotes like her presence was so invigorating that it almost cured flaws in the script are generally discouraged as they can cause an imbalance in how the subject is presented. I am planning on going through the article and removing potentially promotional language. If you have any questions, please let me know. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 19:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Rescinded. Inappropriate warn. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 02:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. I added the tag template for opt-out {{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
2. I'll say into the void that it would be much more useful if adding an ambiguous link to a page directly gave a pop-up/notification/warning of some kind, right there. Not a Talk Page thing.

RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see you have been making a lot of edits to Walser pages, which is welcome. Your referencing is very strange, though, are you using AI to create these references? There are lots of errors and they are not the types of errors typically made by humans. I suggest you read over your references more carefully and review whatever bot or machine you are using to write references. Check my recent edits for some issues I noted once I started looking closely at your edits.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:01, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have never used AI for anything, at all. I'm not using any "bot or machine", and I've never done that.

Your comment didn't list a single example of "very strange" references. Your comment didn't mention a single error.

"Check my recent edits" is not a practical plan for my understanding what you're talking about. I don't read this Talk page, hardly ever. I'm not interested in searching the histories of various unnamed pages.

Also your comment said "a lot of edits to Walser pages". I literally created every single wiki article for modern Walser books in English, entirely human-made, no AI or bots whatsoever (I hate those), and (clearly?) did careful research into many various sources. I am careful about my references and I have no idea what you are talking about. And again, your comment here "very strangely" gave zero examples.RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your last few talk page comments appear to be nothing more than idle complaining and attacking other editors. You've already been warned multiple times, and blocked once already. If you cannot control yourself, then I'm going to block your account. If all you're bringing to the table is complaining and attacking other editors, then your contributions aren't welcome. If you're going to contribute, you need to find a better way to contribute. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

"If all you're bringing to the table is complaining"

1. That's clearly not all I've brought to wikipedia. What you're apparently talking about is a small number of accurate complaints that talk about a problem (NOT any person or editor), among...hundreds or thousands of lines that are not complaints.
2. Also, "complaints" are not a bannable offense.
3. "Complaints" are not "harassment"

"idle complaining and attacking other editors"

I noticed you put "idle complaining" before "attacking other editors." (Probably because you know I've never attacked anyone, and you knew you couldn't put that first without being blatantly dishonest?)

"and attacking other editors"

Criticizing the work of other editors is not "attacking editors". First of all, it's not personal or directed or targeted at any person, and second of all it's about the text and the work.

"If you're going to contribute, you need to find a better way to contribute. "

That seems like you haven't looked at any of my contributions.

RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your angry rants on talk pages are not constructive, helpful, or desired. There's no reason for you to be talking to volunteers like that. It's rude, uncivil, and it doesn't even get results, as you largely get ignored. Come up with a better way to contribute. This isn't it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It seems you've again taken to talk pages to berate Wikipedia and its editors, and go on angry rants. I gave you a final warning on this, and you've refused to stop, so you are blocked until you can give a convincing plan for not doing that any more. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

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).

RandomEditor6772314 (block log · active blocks · global blocks · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · creation log · change block settings · unblock · checkuser (log) · SI)

---

Request reason:

Pretty simple: the (permanent?) block message claims "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy." # I haven't harassed anyone # I haven't personally attacked anyone # Nothing I've done, and nothing the mod who warned me (9 days ago) was saying (e.g. that I did "idle complaining"), is anything like what's on the Harassment page # Criticizing text in an article is not a "personal attack" # Writing "I've seen many editors revert good edits, so I'm not going to make the edit right now", in a relevant Talk page discussion that meticulously describes info and issues is not "harassment" or a "personal attack" # Talking in general about an epidemic of bad edits, with specific constructive details and diagnosis, is obviously not "harassment" or "personal attack. # A previous warning from (an apparently extremely irresponsible) admin(?) claimed that my offense is "idle complaining", and said that this "idle complaining" is "all I brought to wikipedia". That's clearly false if a person looks at my edit history. "Idle complaining", of course, is not on the Personal Attacks or Harassment page. (The admin also claimed that my comments they didn't like were "nonconstructive" which is not true, as they were clearly detailed to specifically described issues that I already laid out the text solution for.) A permanent(?) ban can't be for what is supposedly "idle complaining" in a mathematically tiny percentage of text/edits/writing that I have done on wikipedia. I also have a self-page Talk topic about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RandomEditor6772314#c-RandomEditor6772314-20261017230900-Sergecross73-20261008024500 I'm not only asking that the block be reviewed, I'm asking that the admin who Permanently Blocked me be reviewed, because I clearly haven't done "Harassment" or "Personal attacks", yet the admin permanently blocked me for that reason. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 7:26 pm, 17 October 2026, Saturday (13 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Having reviewed your recent participation in talk page discussions, I agree with the blocking admin's perspective that RandomEditor6772314's approach to communicating criticism is needlessly acerbic and not consistent with civility policy. This unblock request does not dissuade me of that view. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 30 October 2026 (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.

"Indef =/= Permanent". My block message said that it was until you could propose a convincing argument for changing how you interact with people. I did this since you refused to engage with my final warning or stop doing it. I was torn on whether your block reason should be about personal attacks or disruptive editing. Your edits cross into both with the way you fill talk page with rambling tirades about articles and editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

And as far as what I'm talking about, this editor has been prolific in leaving talk pages messages like this on article talk pages, and has refused to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply