Thank you for your patience as I review and respond to your messages, emails, and notifications.To bring a matter to my immediate attention, please start a new discussion or post a new comment on this page.
This isNewslinger'stalk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
HiMorbidthoughts, I did notice that, but decided against requesting a merge because FixerFixerFixer consistently used two hyphens without spaces around them, while Slacker13 tended to place spaces around their double hyphens. The separation of theFixerFixerFixer SPI and theSlacker13 SPI means that any future report should be filed under the investigation page that most strongly matches a user's behavioral pattern. Regardless of the page that the report is filed under, any evidence that links the reported user to FixerFixerFixer and/or Slacker13 will be taken into consideration due to the closely related nature of these accounts. — Newslingertalk06:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiRoyalspage, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. What is the name of the article you would like to create? I recommend reviewingHelp:Your first article to first determine whether a new article is the best way to cover the subject. If a new article is indeed appropriate, then I recommend using thearticle wizard to create a draft about the subject.After reviewingyour talk page, I see that two of your articles have been moved to draft space (Draft:Bahubalendra Chalukya andDraft:Machamara) because the sources cited in them were not enough to show that the article subjects meet Wikipedia'snotability criteria. I read the articles, and I need to ask you this: did you use alarge language model, such as anAI chatbot, to help you write these articles? — Newslingertalk21:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Royalspage, unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to significantly improve these drafts, and I also do not have access to many of the cited sources. As the reviewer noted, some of these citations (e.g."Local family records / genealogies of the Bahubalendra family — these may be private or unpublished manuscripts or oral tradition" and"Oral Tradition and Records of Bahubalendra Family and Other Royal families" inDraft:Machamara) do not satisfy theverifiability policy, as these sources are not"published" and the citations are too vague for a reader to verify. Your drafts need to cite the names of the actual books or documents from which you obtained the information to write the drafts with (as well as the chapter names and page numbers, if possible), and these citations need to be specific enough so that anyone with access to the sources could verify the information they are cited for.Additionally, I can see that bothDraft:Machamara andDraft:Bahubalendra Chalukya were clearly copied and pasted into Wikipedia. I have a hard time believing that the drafts were not LLM-generated because the content is unverifiable with the provided citations, and the drafts are written in a style that differs significantly from the writing style you are using in your comments. — Newslingertalk14:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How to handle large scale LLM misuse going forward
Should we bring them to your/another admin's talk page, post them on theWT:AIC page and tag you/another admin, or bring them to ANI? For example this latestsituation is still unhandled.
Hey @Newslinger there is acase that requires admin attention. Can you look into it or do I have to take it to ANI? This user continued to misuse LLMs ([4],[5],[6])after receiving multiple warnings[7][8] about unsourced and LLM-generated content. I then gave them a final warning[9], which they responded to with an LLM and then proceeded to do this[10]. I gave them a second final warning about it[11] and invited them to my talk page to discuss ways to contribute to wikipedia without LLMs. Their first message on my talk page[12] was without LLMs (good) but then after I responded, they responded to me using an LLMagain[13], which they then denied doing when I asked. They then made this edit[14], which I don't know was LLM-generated or not, but contains claims that are unsupported by the provided source, which is also not reliable whatsoever.NicheSports (talk)22:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After they responded to you they pumped out three more LLM-generated edits sourced to imdb.[17],[18],[19]. End of the road here I think, we have done all we can. Can you handle or should I go to ANI? I already have a separate, similar case open thereNicheSports (talk)12:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has enacted amotion in lieu of a full case:
The topic of Zak Smith is placed under theextended-confirmed restriction. This restriction is set to lapse automatically one year after the enactment of this motion. If an editor believes this restriction should be extended, they may request the Committee consider an extension by posting an amendment request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment in the final month of the restriction's timeframe.
Not sure what part of my comment was casteist? I came across your account and saw that there is a huge overlap in our interest in Palli related topics. I thought it would be nice to collaborate with you on these pages and expressed my wish on your talk page. I am not sure what part of my comment you found to be bigotry? @Newslinger, I am new here. I am not sure if I stepped over their toes. Whatever I have written, I wrote with good faith.Palli Thev Pasanga (talk)15:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zak Smith 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, theguide to arbitration and theArbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Can I as a non-confirmed user participate in this discussion? Does this terror attack fit Indian military history category? I don't think so but I don't want to risk another warning.Longewal (talk)00:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Longewal, this is a complicated case. According to the2005 Ram Mandir attack article, the two main parties present at the incident were individuals fromLashkar-e-Taiba (described in the corresponding article as a"Pakistanimilitant organization") and theCentral Reserve Police Force (described in the corresponding article as a"central armed police force inIndia"). Because of this, the incident included an armed conflict between entities from Pakistan and India, although the groups wereparamilitary, and not part of thePakistan Armed Forces orIndian Armed Forces. TheLashkar-e-Taiba article is categorised underCategory:Paramilitary organisations based in Pakistan. TheCentral Reserve Police Force article is categorised underCategory:Central Armed Police Forces of India, which is in turn categorised underCategory:Paramilitary forces of India.Additionally, theSouth Asian social groups (WP:CT/SASG) extended confirmed restriction applies to parts of the2005 Ram Mandir attack article. Lashkar-e-Taiba fits the classification of a South Asian social group (defined as one of the"social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal") due to its socio-political nature, and is covered under the extended confirmed restriction for that subtopic.Considering all of these factors, the 2005 Ram Mandir attack included an armed conflict between individuals from a Pakistani paramilitary organisation (that is also a South Asian social group) and an Indian paramilitary force. As a result, I lean toward supporting the opinion that participation onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack should be restricted to extended confirmed editors based on a combination of the extended confirmed restrictions on theIndian military history (WP:CT/IMH) andWP:CT/SASG subtopics. I am therefore applying extended confirmed protection to that page. Thank you for asking before participating in that discussion, as several comments from editors who are not extended confirmed have already been reverted by others on that page. — Newslingertalk21:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll step back. I do wonder, though, if this was ArbCom's intended outcome. These restrictions cast a very wide net and create a high barrier for newer contributors who want to add value.
It could take me a year to reach 500 edits, but that doesn't mean I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's core principles. My concern is that these rules are fostering an insular group of editors focused on South-Asia topics. This allows them to dictate consensus, often at the expense of neutrality. I'm starting to see a troubling pattern of like-minded views, and this gatekeeping is a real problem.Longewal (talk)21:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheIndian military history arbitration case, which was closed just over three months ago, resulted in the implementation of ECR in these two subtopics. Both remedies were passed 10 to 0 (with details onthe proposed decision page), which indicates that the Arbitration Committee found ECR to be necessary to limit the disruptive editing in these subtopics. As one of the strictest remedies available, ECR is only considered when lesser restrictions have failed to contain the problems occurring in the topic area, which were documented in thefindings of fact.I understand that working around the boundaries of a topic area affected by ECR can be burdensome, especially when they are not precisely defined. In August, the Committeeendorsed a definition of "Indian military history" in response to a clarification request. The subtopic of South Asian social groups has a longer history prior to the application of ECR that can be seen atWP:GSCASTE. Any editor who is extended confirmed may file anamendment request to appeal an ECR remedy or ask for its scope to be modified, although such a request would need to be supported by clear and compelling evidence, and is unlikely to result in any changes if the original case is still recent.For deletion discussions in general, please keep in mind that the discussion closer is obligated toconsider the strength of the arguments in the responsesinstead of counting them as votes. If a deletion discussion is closed improperly, it can be challenged through adeletion review. For now, I recommend directing your attention away from this discussion and toward topics that are not covered by ECR. The silver lining of ECR is that, by the time you are eligible to fully enter the affected topic area, you will have gained enough experience with Wikipedia processes to be well-prepared. — Newslingertalk18:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,Longewal! Contentious topics and other arbitration sanctions can be difficult to understand and interpret, so I am glad to offer my input on any questions you may have in this area. — Newslingertalk21:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of new RfC on aligning community CTOPs with ArbCom CTOPs
There's too much going on here for me to know what to do. I do feel a bit bad for this editor and was hoping you could guide them through this.
LLM use: I came acrossN.benavides25'sexpansion ofGregorio Dati after it tripped edit filter 1346. I reverted the edits after signs of unreviewed LLM content, including non-neutral language, potential content verification issues (example:...drawing heavily on the language and imagery of Dante and earlier Tuscan poets seemed unsupported bythe provided source), and clear evidence that the user was not writing in their own voice (comparing article content with earlier edit summaries)
The user postedUser_talk:NicheSports#Goro_Dati_Flagged on my talk page, acknowleding LLM use but claiming that they had checked all content. I didn't have time to look into it
Potential UPE and/or COI: The user then reinstated their updates to the page and leftan edit summary establishing that they are an RA who was told by their professor to expand this article. The professor apparently is involved withThe Sfera Project. I don't know if this situation is UPE, COI, both, or neither
Potential copyvio: I ran the article through earwig and it flagged a potential copyright violation:[20]
