User talk:JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I have just come across a self publicist using AI (0.9 probability) to generate their draft autobiograohy, rejected the draft and tagged it for CSD. I have to use a custom rationale, because I am not sure we cover it. See Draft:Thierry Rayer. Do you know if we have formulated a policy about this, both for the article/draft and the dieters editors! using it to generate such things? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is certainly pragmatic 👍 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: This is a difficult type of situation, because it sort of skirts around various policies without crashing straight into any of them. Depressingly often I find myself obliged to decline speedy deletion requests for pages which obviously should be deleted, because they just don't fit any of the criteria. The draft has been edited, making it less blatantly promotional than when it was first created, and it avoided any of the blatantly promotional language which one sees in many self-promotional articles, but I still think it had enough of an overall promotional character to justify speedy deletion. I don't think there's any policy about AI generated content, but there's certainly a guideline or essay or something discouraging it. Unfortunately I can't find it now; it isn't WP:AI. Personally I'm against having a policy about it, because the more policies we have the more confusing things get, especially for good faith new editors; the more things there are for editors to wikilawyer about the detailed wording of the policies; the more difficult it becomes to deal with things which without a specific policy would be obviously not OK but which clearly aren't covered by the policy because the editors who made the policy didn't anticipate them, and so on. (See my comment above beginning "Depressingly often I find...") I long for the days when the whole corpus of Wikipedia policies was on one page, which would fit on about two screens full. ...sigh... (That was before my time on Wikipedia, but even when I started out, the body of policies and guidelines was substantially smaller than it is now, and I really don't think we are any better off for the change.) JBW (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's ever expanding policies are evidence that we appear to love tying ourselves up in red tape! We even named a level in our hierarchy 'bureaucrats'! I predict we will become ever more rule and regulation bound until all we do is discuss rules and regulations... until a rule is made against doing that.

As a side note I have no idea how anyone can choose to put themselves through today's RFA! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think there's any policy about AI generated content, but there's certainly a guideline or essay or something discouraging it. Unfortunately I can't find it now; it isn't WP:AI."

Do you mean WP:LLM? Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68 and Timtrent: Yes, that's the one I had in mind. Thanks. JBW (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JB; please block them from The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 and Central Waqf Council as well.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Looking at the editing history of the article, I found that the /33 block wouldn't be enough: it would need a /25 block, and the software doesn't allow bigger bocks than /32. I did think of blocking each /32 subrange that has edited the article, but I had only got as far as doing one of them (2409:40C2:0:0:0:0:0:0/32) when I decided it wasn't worth doing. I am not going to sit here and block all 128 of the /32 subranges, and if I just block those which have edited the article it's very likely that the editing will just move to another one. Therefore I've semi-protected the article instead. JBW (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to take that Central Waqf article to RfPP anyway, if the sneaky vandalism continued much longer. Now I don't have to keep an eye on it.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: I didn't notice that you mentioned 2 articles above. I'll look at the other one now. JBW (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: I've added the other article to the partial block on 2409:40C2:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. If you see the vandalism move to another related range then let me know, and I'll consider whether to protect that one too. JBW (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified that this threat did happen but I believe it fails WP:NOTNEWS and, considering the length of the article, WP:UNDUE.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Yes, I agree, on both counts. JBW (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've cleared the permaban hurdle, do you think I should decline and recomend trying again so as not to waste the community's time with a futile effort? I need a consensus at UTRS to do so. Or not. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I've posted a comment there. JBW (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock Special:Contributions/124.169.141.129 per my now-vanished comment. Izno (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: I think you are mistaken, as putting triple brackets is not something one would be at all likely to do without a reason; nevertheless I will give the benefit of the doubt. However, you may like to consider whether, if you disagree with another administrator's decision, there might be a more friendly way of expressing your different opinion than "That was a bad block and you should reverse it". How about "I think you were mistaken, and I suggest you might revert it", for example? JBW (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW. I requested the deletion of this page for the reasons I explained at WP:RFU. Would you mind fulfilling this request and then restore the record of deletion nomination? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nwonwu Uchechukwu P is still blocked....-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Oops... silly me. That's what comes of allowing my self to get distracted into silly things such as remembering ancient user signatures, instead of keeping my mind on the job. Done now. JBW (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JBW.

Following the creation of Draft:Dainik Kalyan by an IP user, it was submitted as an AfC submission by a globally locked sockpuppet. Since there's only a few minutes between the creation and submitting, I'm thinking they're probably the same person. Is the draft eligible to be deleted under G5 or should the IP be confirmed as a sock first? Since IPs aren't linked to named accounts, I'm not sure how to proceed with this. Please advise. Thanks. Frost 14:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost: There's no clear answer in this situation, and it's a matter of looking at the evidence and making a judgement. Here are my observations. It certainly looks suspicious. As you may know, there are some long-term persistent sockpuppeteers who regularly use the trick of first using IP editing to create a page, and then using a sockpuppet account to edit it, so that it does not get listed as created by that sockpuppet. However, looking through the past history, including deleted history, of the sockpuppets of this editor, I have not seen any occasions where they have done this (though please tell me if you know of cases that I have missed) and also the draft is not on the editor's usual topic. Neither of those proves anything, as the editor does also edit on other topics, but they cast enough doubt to make me think we have to give the benefit of the doubt, and leave it. Nevertheless, if any future editing of the draft gives further grounds for suspicion, I will reconsider it. I have watchlisted the page, but my watchlist has grown so long that I don't always follow up everything, so feel welcome to contact me again if you see anything there that seems worth considering. JBW (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Frost 15:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]