Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1205

I am reopening this notice, which was closed by a non-administrator (qcne (talk · contribs)) with the rationale that [e]ditor [was] no longer editing on the talk page in question. If it were not clear, I only incidentally ran into the editor in question on a particular talk page, my concern is (per the title of both notices) with WP:COMPETENCY. _{Talk:Suicide methods is a perennial dumpsterfire, a dungeon where otherwise good editors rip each other apart...ANI reports about that page are futile.}

To restate my original concern, the user Coded message of truth (talk · contribs) has stated their unwillingness to WP:COMMUNICATE -- in the words of Athanelar (talk · contribs) they have evidently developed a grudge with the project's ethos and methods. They are concerned with the WP:CABAL and consistently make references to "higher-ups". On a less (or more?) concerning note, they have been using LLMs to create pages with little human input.

I'm not sure if a block is warranted. But I believe it is necessary to at least receive verbal confirmation that they understand basic Wikipedia principles, and an acknowledgement that they will use WP:GOODFAITH going forward (and not engage in anymore personal attacks). wound theology◈ 08:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to resummarise some relevant diffs;

• user compares the criticism they're facing on Wikipedia to being bullied in their childhood
• User characterises the discussion about them in ANI as 'gossip'
• In response to concerns that criticism/conflict on Wikipedia is causing them to lash out, the user outright says 'that's just how [they] are'
• User responds to praise about their contribution by calling it 'too nice to be genuine'
• User makes a WP:POINTy comment which indicates they interpreted comments about their age and pleas for them to walk away as insults
• User explains they feel they would lose 'integrity points' if they stopped engaging in the previous thread
• User says they"re being 'targeted' by the criticism in the same way they were targeted by their childhood bullies
• User leaves a message on their user page stating that 'the people on wikipedia have hollow hearts'
• User leaves a handful of angsty quotations on their user page in the midst of the initial thread
• Rather than actually substantively acknowledging that they've understood their communication issues, the user petulantly acquiesces with statements like "it's fine I agree just leave me alone" and "fine I'll be what you want me to be" and proposes that they'll solve their communication problems by never talking to anyone else on Wikipedia.

Personally I absolutely think a block is warranted. I don't think any acknowledgement will be genuine at this point nor do I think any cooling-off period will outbalance the underlying issues here. I have no doubt this user will be able to contribute productively; so long as nobody ever challenges their behaviour for any reason. I have no doubt in my mind that the moment they run into an editing conflict or conduct dispute we're going to end up right back here again.

To restate my thesis from the other thread; this user is young, hotheaded, obviously troubled and demonstrably lacking WP:COMPETENCE, the only appropriate course here is a medium-to-long term block (6 months+) to allow this user to return to Wikipedia once they've matured a little bit. So long ss they see the WP:CABAL in every shadow and think that Wikipedians who criticise them are acting like their childhood bullies, I simply do not believe this is the right place for them. It'll only cause continued stress for them and wasted time for us. Athanelar (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wound theology and Athanelar: have they continued to make problematic edits after the last thread closed? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

They haven't made any substantial edits at all. The last thread closed less than a day ago and I believe it was closed erroneously (as, again, I was not specifically talking about a single talk page but a multi-page pattern of behavior.) wound theology◈ 13:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Coded message of truth: it is my hope that you adequately address these concerns before you wind up blocked from editing. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wound theology: I will take that as a, "no they have not continued their problem edits." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's trivially true. No edits mean they haven't made any problem edits, yes. It is also true they haven't made any non-problematic edits. It remains to be seen whether or not they take the previous thread or this one to heart, but unfortunately I do not have high hopes. wound theology◈ 13:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Considering they also haven't given any indication they understand the problem with their conduct to begin with (which was really the issue rather than any particular problematic edits) I think you're missing the point. Athanelar (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I closed the thread because it was fairly obviously stressing out the user, and felt from a safety point of view it would be better closed. qcne (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this only goes to demonstrate the fact the user needs to be blocked for their own good. If a user can't handle discussion about them, they shouldn't be allowed to edit, because anyone who edits will eventually make bad edits and will eventually be subject to some kind of negative attention. Athanelar (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I second this response, and would like to stress that a non-admin closing a discussion here with a misleading summary is wholly inappropriate. wound theology◈ 14:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Non-admins are permitted to close discussions on this board, that's not a problem. The user had stopped editing the Talk Page and was clearly just spiralling. qcne (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the basic point here, which is not that non-admins can't close discussions (they can, do, and should.) It is that you closed it for a reason you did not disclose, instead using what is at best a technicality as pretext. It should have been abundantly clear from my original thread (which is, after all, titled WP:COMPETENCY) that it was the user's overall pattern of editing and their stated beliefs about Wikipedia that were in question, not merely their actions on the talk page. wound theology◈ 14:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Jesus Christ again the reason why I haven’t made any edits is because I don’t really have too much time a day usually it’s on weekends and that would be today but like I don’t know if I even care anymore like if I’m gonna get blocked then just ban me like I don’t know what’s happening. I don’t really care. This is like really really ridiculous Now like this is absurd. I had many things to write down to do. There were some things I wanted to fix that I had written down for today, but I don’t really like care anymore at this point. If I’m in a band, then ban me although I feel like logically the person that I allegedly made personal attacks to shouldn’t really have a say in this and he is the one pushing it the hardest Coded message of truth (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Facepalm oy, vey iz mir -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Coded message of truth please calm down and I'll try to explain the problem again. People are worried because your first response to criticism (valid or not) is to become angry and defensive.

You need to understand that everyone's priority is Wikipedia and making sure it's the best it can be - to do that we need to be able to talk to each other in a calm & polite way.

Unfortunately it looks like you're having trouble, which is why this problem isn't going to go away unless you can show that you can talk to other people calmly and openly.

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to assume good faith and you've not been doing that. Even when someone complimented you, you presumed they were being mean.

If you can't adhere to one of the core parts of editing on Wikipedia, that will understandably worry people. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

He's not going to take anything serious, here. His Shaggy Rogers-type partial incoherant post, shows that. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I realised when I was typing that I've already said all of this on their Talk page yesterday, but I figured I'd give things one last shot to see if there's any way of defusing the situation.

I live in hope.. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think re-opening the ANI thread by @Wound theology was the right thing to do, certainly doesn't defuse the situation :/ qcne (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Wound Theology on this. The issue at hand was general competency, not disruption on a single talk page. The response above suggests that the issue remains. While your attempt to prevent unnecessary distress is laudable, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to prevent distress, but rather to build an encyclopedia. Good faith concerns were raised that, independent of their response to these two ANI threads, they may be a poor fit for editing, whether WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a discussion on whether the editor themselves are disruptive, even unintentionally, should be allowed to conclude. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Not an admin, but just reading what has been posted it's fairly clear this should not have been closed and was a WP:BADNAC by @Qcne. An editor reacting poorly is not a reason for a non-admin closure of a AnI discussion, in fact it's wholly inappropriate for someone to step in and stop discussion because of a nebulous observation that a user is "spiraling." If you have legitimate concerns about a user's well-being (to an extent that might involve potential for personal harm), then you should follow the instructions at WP:EMERGENCY instead of just jumping in and closing an AnI thread that is bringing up issues with an editor's behavior. nf utvol (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Clearly you don't think re-opening the ANI thread was the right thing to do; you closed the last one inappropriately. wound theology◈ 17:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

You think that, logically, the person you allegedly made personal attacks to shouldn't have a say in this? That's ass-backwards. wound theology◈ 16:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Not really certainly not this big of a say for the same reason you’re not allowed to make Wikipedia pages if you are related to the topic same logic Coded message of truth (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No one here has more of a say than anyone else here. wound theology◈ 17:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations you just described a democracy 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁 holy hell Coded message of truth (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do things by consensus. We do not count votes. There is no cabal or "higher-ups". Admins are nothing more than janitors. wound theology◈ 18:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

OK Coded message of truth (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Coded message of truth's admission that they were "...only just playing around in this chat", isn't very promising. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, if the disruption and incivility have stopped, a block would be punitive rather than preventative. On the other hand, Coded message of truth, you need to respond to this thread in a manner that convinces us that the problem edits will not resume, that you will make constructive edits, and that you understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a playground for you to play around in. (In case you cannot read between the lines, I'm trying to avert you being blocked, but this not a hill on which I wish to die.) Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

They've edited their userpage to state they are away and thinking of leaving Wikipedia - I don't think pressuring them into replying here immediately or be blocked is particularly useful. qcne (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It is useful if it averts their being blocked, no? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:ANIFLU. This is not a matter of the editor being harangued after the matter is already settled. The question of their competency has not been answered, and their retreating away from the question and evident mental spiraling as a result of it only proves the case for a block. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Au contraire. I was young once. I see them as being embarrassed/humiliated/mortified by all of this and realizing they've gotten in over their depth. Perhaps if we don't beat them too badly, they will return after they've matured and overcome their other issues, and become productive, constructive users. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no doubt about that. I also have no doubt that they should not return until they have overcome those issues, or else we're just going to end up right back here as soon as they have another editing conflict or conduct dispute, and a block should be imposed to give them sufficient time away from the project to mature a bit and change their mindset. Athanelar (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems less like an ANIFLU and more like a compulsive addiction to responding at ANI in the least productive way possible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

To that end...I don't know that there's really anything they need to answer for here. If they start up talk page or mainspace disruption again, they should be blocked. If they are just messing around in user space in a way that doesn't impact anyone else, I don't think they need to be sanctioned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks like they've just been adding userboxes rather than editing mainspace.

From my interactions with them, the two issues I've been concerned over are AGF and AI usage.

If they can explicitly agree to avoid using AI until they've got more experience and understand that other editors are trying to help them, then I'll be very happy. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

From what I've seen, this user is creating concise, well-written, well-sourced articles. I've looked at their drafts to try to get them into the end zone, but can't find anything to substantially improve or "un-AI."

(I am the editor who complimented them on their talk page. It was genuine, but I understand their suspicion and somewhat regret it.) Cerulean Depths (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Dude, I don’t know what else you want me to say he said he didn’t understand me. He was talking something about blue links a lot. I don’t know this happened two days ago so I made a joke about a blue link to English reading levels then a big thing happened with you guys then it got closed and then everything was all peaceful and then today rolled around and I had some things I was planning on doing I mean, I have a paper right in front of me Full of some other stuff I wanted to do today that isn’t on Wikipedia but now I’m not really gonna do that cause I don’t know where this is gonna go cause it opened up again like I don’t know if there’s much else I can say with the AI yeah I guess so. I mean it’s not against the terms of service but sure I’ll try to stop for the most part. I think I would still use it as a general template. And I would still probably have to filter what I’m saying through it to get the correct punctuation, but I mean, I don’t really wanna even say this. I don’t really want to defend myself and say my side there’s any side it’s just like very shallow if you guys want to ban me then ban me. If you guys think what I did is worthy of a ban then sure I don’t even wanna say what I’m saying right now I just want you guys to go about this however, your hearts want it to Coded message of truth (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) THIS! This is good enough for me, I only wanted to see a calm response and an understanding of what led to the situation. There are admins and more experienced editors on here who may have something else to add, but this response makes me happy. Struck, not sure what to think after this: [] Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

What how why what about it you know my bio is a work of art how could any of that change your mind my bio is a masterpiece Coded message of truth (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Jesus Christ you guys are killing me here but it's still beautiful I still miss this but unfortunately this is dying down because a lot of people have stopped caring about this at least seemingly so Coded message of truth (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

OK OK I get it here take my lunch money Coded message of truth (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You guys are adorable thank you for all of this Coded message of truth (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It's like a never ending source of joy I haven't had this much fun interacting with humans in a while I hope that I wake up with an infinite amount of notifications and I pray that this will go on for eternity sweet dreams good night Coded message of truth (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Uh, I don't particularly see an understanding of what led to this situation here. Particularly, we need to see an openness to collaboration and discussion of content, rather than a resignation that "we're going to do what we're going to do". wound theology◈ 17:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that I've misread the situation, apologies if so - hence my reference to more experienced editors noticing something I may well have missed. I'm going to withdraw from the discussion and leave this in ANI's capable hands for this very reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Damn it now my lawyer is withdrawing from the conversation Coded message of truth (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

How is this behavior stopping you from improving the encyclopedia? Personal attacks are unacceptable yes, but Coded message of truth has now been warned about NPA and appears to have desisted. I'm not sure what is gained by escalating to ANI and citing CIR. Is this really an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem? And when has a WP:COOLDOWN block ever resolved a behavioral problem? I think Qcne's closure was reasonable and this discussion should be headed in the same direction.

To Coded message of truth: please understand that while editing Wikipedia is totally voluntary, when you do edit you must follow all policies and guidelines endorsed by community consensus. That includes an expectation that your participation in discussions is always constructive and respectful. You can read about this policy in more detail at Wikipedia:Civility. A pattern of incivility could result in the loss of your editing privileges. We really would like you to keep contributing to Wikipedia, as long as you can do so in a spirit of collaboration. This is something many of us struggle with at times, and there are quite a few essays giving advice or personal perspectives on how best to go about it. One that I frequently refer back to is Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Maybe it will help you, too. If you need help or have questions, my talk page is always open. —Rutebega (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Good job would you like to be my new lawyer since my old lawyer withdrew there we go here's someone with a heart let's see how long this lasts Coded message of truth (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Coded message of truth, I'd strongly urge you to stop replying here. Normally I'd suggest you stop replying except to answer to give simple and direct answers to questions. But I'll be honest your replies here have been bad enough that it might be better if you just stay away from this thread point blank and hope the community and admins haven't seen enough to block you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Zounds! I for one find my patience exhausted and myself in agreement with Wound theology. I'll leave it to the rest of the Community. SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

"[T]his behavior [is not] stopping you from improving the encyclopedia" is a bad argument, because it can be levied against practically everything else on this page outside edit wars and harassment -- and this isn't even WP:AN3. Furthermore, to reiterate this once again, this is not about a single incident or behavior on a single page. Nor is it solely about personal attacks. In fact, the personal attacks have no really desisted either; they're still implying that anyone concerned with their conduct is heartless or lacks empathy.

It is indeed about a chronic, intractable behavioral problem, as CMoT has still not shown any level of understanding for what Wikipedia is, or why we are concerned with their behavior. Their response to your comment, and the increasingly incoherent responses elsewhere in this thread, is more evidence that this problem cannot be solved. Despite being told by multiple users multiple times that this is not a trial, that there are no "higher ups", that admins are just janitors and so on, they are still treating this as if they're being persecuted for being empathetic. In reality, refusal to collaborate or discuss issues is an immediate sign that one lacks competency. wound theology◈ 07:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Man please just move on it's been days this was already shut down once and you are the victim of the joke you should also lack credibility for that reason for the same reason Wikipedia does not allow you to make articles that you are connected to it's the same logic oh god Coded message of truth (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Clearly the user has learnt nothing having just submitted this Draft:Krizz Kaliko - Abu Dhabi Ai garbage for review. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't say this lightly, but my AGF is being stretched to the limit: from experience elsewhere, I have the feeling we're being trolled. Narky Blert (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, yes. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)