User talk:Faster than Thunder

• /Archive
• /Archive 2

Restoring sock edits

If you're going to restore an edit removed per WP:BANREVERT or WP:BMB, you need to take responsibility for the accuracy and validity of the edit as if you had made it yourself. If you will be restoring this wholesale then you need to check every iota of info added to ensure that the content is fully supported by the sources and that there are no copyright/close paraphrasing issues as these are the issues that led to this sockmaster being blocked in the first place.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for judging that book by its cover. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 20:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

clarification about a warning

@Faster than Thunder you left this[1] warning, but looking at the diffs it refers to[2][3] i'm not seeing the vandalism, am i missing something? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Content needs to be sourced, and original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. As you can see, them adding the end date was not supported by a source. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

that is not vandalism, vandalism has a very specific meaning which you can read at WP:VANDALISM. to pull a couple of quotes from there "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

i would ask you strike that warning as it is inaccurate.

"As you can see, them adding the end date was not supported by a source." i know, i'm the one who already removed that section for being unsupported.[4] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

His name is "Arch Clements", not "Arch Clement". Do your own (in-depth) research and you will find that to be true. Bill Clements (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Reporting Shink77

Did you intend to report that user and also say that their edits were in good faith?

If so, please feel free to ignore this message! MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

RFA

Don’t nominate someone for RFA before they accept. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me I'd make a good admin. @Faster than Thunder, I noticed on your user page you have a formula to determine if someone is ready for admin. Did you use that by any chance? Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 17:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Mathematically, you are 79% ready for adminship. I used the formula. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 22:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop reaching out to random editors asking to nominate them for RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder you are not even assessing the type of content a user produces. I have 1 article. That's it, no good articles, not even an ITN to my name. I revert vandalism and address content issues. My edit count is high because of this. A high edit count doesn't equate to gaining the bit. Knitsey (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. The way you do it, you don't even need to look at the type or quality of edits the person makes. I could be a massive vandal with 4,000 vandalistic edits and you'd still think I was ready for admin based on that logic. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 02:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Warnings etc.

Hello, I received the following message from 'Faster than Thunder': "Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing". All but two edits were 'reverted' for no explained reason. OK, I've stopped, but the edits I made were neither unsourced nor poorly sourced - all were sourced from credits (or lack thereof) on record labels, CD booklets and sleeve notes, & were explained as such when I made them. What happened to the idea of 'assuming good faith' in new members? (In this case good faith isn't necessary - I can substantiate all the edits). I understand from their user page that 'Faster than Thunder' is "currently experiencing significant real world stress that may affect their ability to work on Wikimedia" & that "This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know". I sympathise, and empathise, but you made a mistake. Let's not exacerbate real world stress by creating unnecessary online world stress. Toepath (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain

Why you warned Xavibueno when they didn't do any edits after the first warning by cluebot? They didn't trip an edit filter either. You shouldn't warn editors after they have already been warned by another user, but not carried out vandalism after the latest warning. Knitsey (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought a level three warning was appropriate, but didn't delete the robot warning because you are not allowed to delete other's legitimate talk page comments. What should I do if I feel a robot warning is at an inappropriate level? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 21:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Leave it. Watch for edit filter triggers and edits. Unless it's something like littering a page with racism, transphobia, threats etc. Something that needs rev/del. If you're not sure, ask an admin if it needs further reporting. Knitsey (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Generative LLM website

Hello, I'm MtBotany, I noticed you used botanicalrealm.com as a source for an edit to Gymnospora. It is an unreliable source due to being generated by a Large Language Model so I have reverted the edit. If you have any questions WP:PING me here or ask on my talk page. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I added relevant information to Wikipedia:Large language models. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Draft:Rufus Steele. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Alice Miller

All new facts have been supplemented with citations (e.g. the number and names of Alice Miller's children, more details from Alice's life before, during and after WWII (cited from Martin's biography of his mother), additional details and clarification into Alice's written theories to give a more factual account of her positions relative to psychoanalysis (references to her specific books where she broaches certain topics, like fairytales or leaving infants in cribs to cry), and her son's biography and role in the 2020 Swiss documentary made about Alice Miller.) Please identify where citations are additionally needed so I can continue to bolster her page with relevant and accurate sources. Finishedberserk (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable sources include:

• User-editable websites
  • Wikis
    • Any Wikimedia projects
• Sources directly controllable by the article subject
  • Sources by the article subject, like in this case, www.alice-miller.com
  • References implying that they were created by the article subject, like in this case, starting with "Miller, Alice (1990)."
• References without links to any of the above

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 23:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not source from any unreliable sources. I didn't source from any user-editable websites, wikis, or any wikimedia projects. The alice-miller website is an archive of the letters and articles Alice wrote while she was alive; she is now dead and has been dead for more than a decade, so the source is not directly controllable by the article subject.

The 1990 reference is to her books, and is specifically referenced to describe the theories/ideas that Alice *wrote about in her books*. Finishedberserk (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, rapidly making many consecutive edits, common patterns for vandals, to a single page can make your edits hard to distinguish from vandalism. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 23:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

You accused me of vandalism and threatened to block me for adding good faith material. I assume the reason was lack of citations, but literally none of the other content has citations. Go ahead and remove that entire page then. If you want to throw citations up there, go right ahead. Going right to the ban hammer for not even vandalizing the webpage is absurd. 97.190.161.252 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:97.190.161.252. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia.

This edit that provoked your bogus level 3 vandalism warning was totally benign.

You've been cautioned about inappropriate use of warning templates multiple times in the last 2 months:

• 2 May 2025^[5][6]
• 9 May 2025^[7]
• 10 May 2025^[8]

Our fellow editors are not here to be whacked like moles.

What you're potentially doing is driving people away from editing Wikipedia.

Your user page mentions you're under a lot of stress -- believe me, I understand what that can be like. I encourage you to step away from vandalism hunt and focus on building content. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

A better thing is that if an edit is hard to distinguish from vandalism but looks constructive, don't act on it. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 02:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder: Please don't attempt to make move requests from the "style guideline" you created on your own userpage, as you've done here: Talk:Noel (rapper). Your style guidelines contradict the overall community guidelines at WP:TITLES and WP:MOS. You'd be better off proposing changes to those guidelines than trying to push your own guideline on others. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Plots in books and film

Hi, I noticed that you reverted an IP's edits to plots in the Harry Potter series, eg Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, with edit summaries like: Reverted good faith edits by 1.2.3.4: Add a source for it.

The book or film is a perfectly acceptable primary source for such plots, and their content does not have to be cited, and rarely is. Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I thought that not including a comment indicating what pages were used as sources or a regular citation was sufficient to consider it unsourced. Without citing a page number in a comment, these kinds of edits feel hard to distinguish from actual disruptive editing. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 14:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Next time read the section

The section needs the work I'm asking for, next time instead of trying to be really quick with your scolding, take the time to realize that not everyone is as polished. I'm not vandalizing or making unnecessary changes. Editors like you are a problem here, try and be helpful instead of condescending. Thank you. 2600:8804:400:35F0:0:0:0:5A0F (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Now that you have included a maintenance template, it is much easier to distinguish from vandalism. You should have included why you think that what you removed in the first place doesn't belong (i.e. loosely related to the subject of the article). Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 22:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:HOUND and your retaliatory edits here after your topic ban on Wikivoyage

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's harassment policy, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. Asamboi (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for cross-wiki harassment in the form of manufacturing a content dispute with a sister-wiki admin who you were in conflict with on that wiki, then taking them to AN/I.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Faster than Thunder. I want elaborate on why this is an indefinite block. Part of it is the history of warnings I'm seeing on your talkpage, but usually for an editor of your experience, if that were the only issue, we'd be talking about a block of a week to a month. However, I take harassment very seriously. When you harass an editor, you don't just disrupt their editing experience (which is bad enough as it is!), you lower the level of safety and trust in this community. If an admin only temporarily blocks a user under those circumstances, and the block expires without you showing that you understand that harassment is wrong, other editors in the future who come into conflict with you will have to wonder whether it's safe to do so, or whether you'll do to them what you tried to do to Asamboi here—a particularly nasty sort of manufactured AN/I controversy in pursuit of a retaliatory sanction.

Indefinite does not mean infinite, and this does not have to be the end. Your TBAN on Wikivoyage should have been a wake-up call, not a reason to harass someone, but hopefully this can be your wake-up call instead. If you can show that you understand why what you did is wrong, and make a credibly commitment to it instead, and address the general issues I'm seeing on this talkpage of you not listening to others' feedback, I think there is a path forward here. But this is serious business. Wikipedia is not a game, and trying to "take out" an opponent for wronging you is no small matter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Faster than Thunder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• I realize that I should not escalate a conflict to other wikis. I promise that if I am blocked on another wiki, I should not interact with related users anywhere. This means that if I get unblocked here first, I will stop interacting with Asamboi or any other Wikivoyage admin on any wiki in any form for the remainder of my ban there. I will be careful and avoid using accusatory tones unless absolutely necessary (i.e. obvious vandalism).
• I realize that I have warned users for no apparent reason and should be careful. When dealing with vandalism, I will carefully check the nature of the edit, and if I cannot find out what it is, I will not warn the user. For at least the next year, I will focus on content creation and not fight vandalism here at all. If a seemingly malicious edit appears to be in good faith and can be built on, I will refactor the edit accordingly rather than warning the user.
• I realize that it is wrong to enforce your arbitrary ideas on others unilaterally. I will be careful when deciding whether and what to move a page to. I will use cues from the page content on the context of parts of the title, especially invalid characters. This means that my arbitrary standards/ideas cannot be the only reason for proposing a move. For now, I will stop proposing moves altogether.
• Although more specific to Wikivoyage, if sourcing is not the norm, I will only edit in areas about things I actually have direct first-hand experience with. This means that since sourcing is not the norm on Wikivoyage, I will not make any edits relating to the Philippines or kosher food there (until I actually go to the Philippines or come across a handful of kosher establishments). For now, I will not make any edits to Wikivoyage at all.
• I realize that a sanction for a legitimate reason (in my case, a block on Wikivoyage for repeatedly adding hallucinations/false information to food-related information) is not a good reason to retaliate on another wiki, such as by stirring up conflicts or taking them to ANI. If I am to be blocked on any project in the future, I will not take the piss off back on any related users on any other wiki or take them to WP:ANI.
• I will focus on only content creation/vandalism-fighting and be very careful elsewhere. This means that I will not grow power hungry or try to appear more trustworthy than I am. As mentioned, I will only focus on content creation for at least the next year.
• I understand that it is wrong to stalk/hound another user without a constructive reason (i.e. obvious vandalism), especially cross-wiki. This means that I should carefully think and analyze before I take action in following another user around, especially an admin on another wiki, and disagreeing with their actions on another wiki, such as seeing one of their comments as harassment, is not an excuse. I realize that Asamboi's contribution here that I edit-warred over is actually correct. As previously mentioned, if I get unblocked here first, I will not interact with any Wikivoyage administrators for the rest of my sanction there.
• I started voy:User talk:Asamboi#Think before you warn because I saw voy:User talk:Faster than Thunder#Filipino cuisine as an attack since I had refrained from undesirable kosher-related edits substantially before that warning but that sentence used the phrase "you're wrecking ignorant havoc". I should have left my relationship with Asam at that and not interacted with him further on any wiki. I eventually checked one of Asamboi's edits here and saw that something appeared to be wrong similar to him rollbacking me on Wikivoyage, which included a grammar fix as a side effect, which was later restored by another admin there. I should have very carefully checked the sources he removed and analyzed all of them to find out that his edit was actually revert-unworthy. I decreasingly judged sources by their covers and restored what Asamboi reverted that I thought was fine until I saw his last summary on City Harvest Church. Seeing that the nature of reverting good content as a side effect was a pattern (Asamboi was actually right), I acted in haste (took him to AN/I immediately without assessing his actions) and repented in leisure (this block). I shouldn't have even accounted for his cross-wiki patterns. Since he was acting in good faith as well, I should have waited for his response for deciding what to do next. Had I done this in the first place, I wouldn't have told him to refrain from reverting good edits as side effects of reverting bad edits or taken him to ANI. I will carefully inspect an edit and analyze it top-to-bottom before I decide whether to take a user to ANI.
  • I shouldn't have even interacted with Asamboi in any form on Wikipedia at all after my sanction on Wikivoyage.

This was largely based on User:Faster than Thunder#What I've learned from my mistakes throughout Wikimedia, which I crafted as an autistic 15-year-old so that I am less likely to make similar mistakes in the future, and so that other neurodivergent editors don’t end up like me. I will increasingly add points as I’m corrected. My condition and/or my age likely have played a role in this incident.

P.S. I read Wikipedia:Five pillars carefully.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= * I realize that I should not escalate a conflict to other wikis. I promise that if I am blocked on another wiki, I should not interact with related users anywhere. This means that '''if I get unblocked here first, I will stop interacting with Asamboi or any other Wikivoyage admin on any wiki in any form for the remainder of my ban there.''' I will be careful and avoid using accusatory tones unless absolutely necessary (i.e. obvious vandalism). * I realize that I have warned users for no apparent reason and should be careful. When dealing with vandalism, I will carefully check the nature of the edit, and '''if I cannot find out what it is, I will not warn the user. For at least the next year, I will focus on content creation and not fight vandalism here at all.''' If a seemingly malicious edit appears to be in good faith and ''can'' be built on, I will refactor the edit accordingly rather than warning the user. * I realize that it is wrong to enforce your arbitrary ideas on others unilaterally. I will be careful when deciding whether and what to move a page to. I will use cues from the page content on the context of parts of the title, especially invalid characters. This means that '''my arbitrary standards/ideas cannot be the only reason for proposing a move. For now, I will stop proposing moves altogether.''' * Although more specific to Wikivoyage, if sourcing is not the norm, I will only edit in areas about things I actually have ''direct first-hand'' experience with. This means that '''since sourcing is not the norm on Wikivoyage, I will not make any edits relating to the Philippines or kosher food there (until I actually go to the Philippines or come across a handful of kosher establishments). For now, I will not make any edits to Wikivoyage at all.''' * I realize that a sanction for a legitimate reason (in my case, a block on Wikivoyage for repeatedly adding hallucinations/false information to food-related information) is not a good reason to retaliate on another wiki, such as by stirring up conflicts or taking them to ANI. '''If I am to be blocked on any project in the future, I will not take the piss off back on any related users on any other wiki or take them to WP:ANI.''' * I will focus on only content creation/vandalism-fighting and be ''very'' careful elsewhere. This means that '''I will not grow power hungry or try to appear more trustworthy than I am. As mentioned, I will only focus on content creation for at least the next year.''' * I understand that it is wrong to stalk/hound another user without a constructive reason (i.e. obvious vandalism), especially cross-wiki. This means that '''I should carefully think and analyze before I take action in following another user around, especially an admin on another wiki, and disagreeing with their actions on another wiki, such as seeing one of their comments as harassment, is not an excuse.''' I realize that Asamboi's contribution here that I edit-warred over is actually correct. '''As previously mentioned, if I get unblocked here first, I will not interact with any Wikivoyage administrators for the rest of my sanction there.''' * I started [[voy:User talk:Asamboi#Think before you warn]] because I saw [[voy:User talk:Faster than Thunder#Filipino cuisine]] as an attack since I had refrained from undesirable kosher-related edits substantially before that warning but that sentence used the phrase "you're wrecking ignorant havoc". '''I should have left my relationship with Asam at that and not interacted with him further on ''any wiki''.''' I eventually checked one of Asamboi's edits here and saw that something appeared to be wrong similar to him rollbacking me on Wikivoyage, which included a grammar fix as a side effect, which was later restored by another admin there. '''I should have very carefully checked the sources he removed and analyzed all of them to find out that his edit was actually revert-unworthy.''' I decreasingly judged sources by their covers and restored what Asamboi reverted that I thought was fine until I saw his last summary on [[City Harvest Church]]. Seeing that the nature of reverting good content as a side effect was a pattern (Asamboi was actually right), I acted in haste (took him to AN/I immediately without assessing his actions) and repented in leisure (this block). '''I shouldn't have even accounted for his cross-wiki patterns.''' Since he was acting in good faith as well, I should have waited for his response for deciding what to do next. Had I done this in the first place, I wouldn't have told him to refrain from reverting good edits as side effects of reverting bad edits or taken him to ANI. '''I will carefully inspect an edit and analyze it top-to-bottom before I decide whether to take a user to ANI.''' ** I shouldn't have even interacted with Asamboi in any form on Wikipedia at all after my sanction on Wikivoyage. This was largely based on [[User:Faster than Thunder#What I've learned from my mistakes throughout Wikimedia]], which I crafted as an autistic 15-year-old so that I am less likely to make similar mistakes in the future, and so that other neurodivergent editors don’t end up like me. I will increasingly add points as I’m corrected. My condition and/or my age likely have played a role in this incident. P.S. I read [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] carefully.  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= * I realize that I should not escalate a conflict to other wikis. I promise that if I am blocked on another wiki, I should not interact with related users anywhere. This means that '''if I get unblocked here first, I will stop interacting with Asamboi or any other Wikivoyage admin on any wiki in any form for the remainder of my ban there.''' I will be careful and avoid using accusatory tones unless absolutely necessary (i.e. obvious vandalism). * I realize that I have warned users for no apparent reason and should be careful. When dealing with vandalism, I will carefully check the nature of the edit, and '''if I cannot find out what it is, I will not warn the user. For at least the next year, I will focus on content creation and not fight vandalism here at all.''' If a seemingly malicious edit appears to be in good faith and ''can'' be built on, I will refactor the edit accordingly rather than warning the user. * I realize that it is wrong to enforce your arbitrary ideas on others unilaterally. I will be careful when deciding whether and what to move a page to. I will use cues from the page content on the context of parts of the title, especially invalid characters. This means that '''my arbitrary standards/ideas cannot be the only reason for proposing a move. For now, I will stop proposing moves altogether.''' * Although more specific to Wikivoyage, if sourcing is not the norm, I will only edit in areas about things I actually have ''direct first-hand'' experience with. This means that '''since sourcing is not the norm on Wikivoyage, I will not make any edits relating to the Philippines or kosher food there (until I actually go to the Philippines or come across a handful of kosher establishments). For now, I will not make any edits to Wikivoyage at all.''' * I realize that a sanction for a legitimate reason (in my case, a block on Wikivoyage for repeatedly adding hallucinations/false information to food-related information) is not a good reason to retaliate on another wiki, such as by stirring up conflicts or taking them to ANI. '''If I am to be blocked on any project in the future, I will not take the piss off back on any related users on any other wiki or take them to WP:ANI.''' * I will focus on only content creation/vandalism-fighting and be ''very'' careful elsewhere. This means that '''I will not grow power hungry or try to appear more trustworthy than I am. As mentioned, I will only focus on content creation for at least the next year.''' * I understand that it is wrong to stalk/hound another user without a constructive reason (i.e. obvious vandalism), especially cross-wiki. This means that '''I should carefully think and analyze before I take action in following another user around, especially an admin on another wiki, and disagreeing with their actions on another wiki, such as seeing one of their comments as harassment, is not an excuse.''' I realize that Asamboi's contribution here that I edit-warred over is actually correct. '''As previously mentioned, if I get unblocked here first, I will not interact with any Wikivoyage administrators for the rest of my sanction there.''' * I started [[voy:User talk:Asamboi#Think before you warn]] because I saw [[voy:User talk:Faster than Thunder#Filipino cuisine]] as an attack since I had refrained from undesirable kosher-related edits substantially before that warning but that sentence used the phrase "you're wrecking ignorant havoc". '''I should have left my relationship with Asam at that and not interacted with him further on ''any wiki''.''' I eventually checked one of Asamboi's edits here and saw that something appeared to be wrong similar to him rollbacking me on Wikivoyage, which included a grammar fix as a side effect, which was later restored by another admin there. '''I should have very carefully checked the sources he removed and analyzed all of them to find out that his edit was actually revert-unworthy.''' I decreasingly judged sources by their covers and restored what Asamboi reverted that I thought was fine until I saw his last summary on [[City Harvest Church]]. Seeing that the nature of reverting good content as a side effect was a pattern (Asamboi was actually right), I acted in haste (took him to AN/I immediately without assessing his actions) and repented in leisure (this block). '''I shouldn't have even accounted for his cross-wiki patterns.''' Since he was acting in good faith as well, I should have waited for his response for deciding what to do next. Had I done this in the first place, I wouldn't have told him to refrain from reverting good edits as side effects of reverting bad edits or taken him to ANI. '''I will carefully inspect an edit and analyze it top-to-bottom before I decide whether to take a user to ANI.''' ** I shouldn't have even interacted with Asamboi in any form on Wikipedia at all after my sanction on Wikivoyage. This was largely based on [[User:Faster than Thunder#What I've learned from my mistakes throughout Wikimedia]], which I crafted as an autistic 15-year-old so that I am less likely to make similar mistakes in the future, and so that other neurodivergent editors don’t end up like me. I will increasingly add points as I’m corrected. My condition and/or my age likely have played a role in this incident. P.S. I read [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] carefully.  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= * I realize that I should not escalate a conflict to other wikis. I promise that if I am blocked on another wiki, I should not interact with related users anywhere. This means that '''if I get unblocked here first, I will stop interacting with Asamboi or any other Wikivoyage admin on any wiki in any form for the remainder of my ban there.''' I will be careful and avoid using accusatory tones unless absolutely necessary (i.e. obvious vandalism). * I realize that I have warned users for no apparent reason and should be careful. When dealing with vandalism, I will carefully check the nature of the edit, and '''if I cannot find out what it is, I will not warn the user. For at least the next year, I will focus on content creation and not fight vandalism here at all.''' If a seemingly malicious edit appears to be in good faith and ''can'' be built on, I will refactor the edit accordingly rather than warning the user. * I realize that it is wrong to enforce your arbitrary ideas on others unilaterally. I will be careful when deciding whether and what to move a page to. I will use cues from the page content on the context of parts of the title, especially invalid characters. This means that '''my arbitrary standards/ideas cannot be the only reason for proposing a move. For now, I will stop proposing moves altogether.''' * Although more specific to Wikivoyage, if sourcing is not the norm, I will only edit in areas about things I actually have ''direct first-hand'' experience with. This means that '''since sourcing is not the norm on Wikivoyage, I will not make any edits relating to the Philippines or kosher food there (until I actually go to the Philippines or come across a handful of kosher establishments). For now, I will not make any edits to Wikivoyage at all.''' * I realize that a sanction for a legitimate reason (in my case, a block on Wikivoyage for repeatedly adding hallucinations/false information to food-related information) is not a good reason to retaliate on another wiki, such as by stirring up conflicts or taking them to ANI. '''If I am to be blocked on any project in the future, I will not take the piss off back on any related users on any other wiki or take them to WP:ANI.''' * I will focus on only content creation/vandalism-fighting and be ''very'' careful elsewhere. This means that '''I will not grow power hungry or try to appear more trustworthy than I am. As mentioned, I will only focus on content creation for at least the next year.''' * I understand that it is wrong to stalk/hound another user without a constructive reason (i.e. obvious vandalism), especially cross-wiki. This means that '''I should carefully think and analyze before I take action in following another user around, especially an admin on another wiki, and disagreeing with their actions on another wiki, such as seeing one of their comments as harassment, is not an excuse.''' I realize that Asamboi's contribution here that I edit-warred over is actually correct. '''As previously mentioned, if I get unblocked here first, I will not interact with any Wikivoyage administrators for the rest of my sanction there.''' * I started [[voy:User talk:Asamboi#Think before you warn]] because I saw [[voy:User talk:Faster than Thunder#Filipino cuisine]] as an attack since I had refrained from undesirable kosher-related edits substantially before that warning but that sentence used the phrase "you're wrecking ignorant havoc". '''I should have left my relationship with Asam at that and not interacted with him further on ''any wiki''.''' I eventually checked one of Asamboi's edits here and saw that something appeared to be wrong similar to him rollbacking me on Wikivoyage, which included a grammar fix as a side effect, which was later restored by another admin there. '''I should have very carefully checked the sources he removed and analyzed all of them to find out that his edit was actually revert-unworthy.''' I decreasingly judged sources by their covers and restored what Asamboi reverted that I thought was fine until I saw his last summary on [[City Harvest Church]]. Seeing that the nature of reverting good content as a side effect was a pattern (Asamboi was actually right), I acted in haste (took him to AN/I immediately without assessing his actions) and repented in leisure (this block). '''I shouldn't have even accounted for his cross-wiki patterns.''' Since he was acting in good faith as well, I should have waited for his response for deciding what to do next. Had I done this in the first place, I wouldn't have told him to refrain from reverting good edits as side effects of reverting bad edits or taken him to ANI. '''I will carefully inspect an edit and analyze it top-to-bottom before I decide whether to take a user to ANI.''' ** I shouldn't have even interacted with Asamboi in any form on Wikipedia at all after my sanction on Wikivoyage. This was largely based on [[User:Faster than Thunder#What I've learned from my mistakes throughout Wikimedia]], which I crafted as an autistic 15-year-old so that I am less likely to make similar mistakes in the future, and so that other neurodivergent editors don’t end up like me. I will increasingly add points as I’m corrected. My condition and/or my age likely have played a role in this incident. P.S. I read [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] carefully.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 13:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a step in the right direction, FtT, but I'm still not sure you're getting what the issue was with what you did to Asamboi. Could you comment on that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

[9] Is a further step in the right direction in some ways, but still doesn't really address the heart of the matter in my opinion. The reviewing admin is welcome to disagree, of course—but to my eyes, you're still not really explaining why you thought this was okay to do, and why you now see that it wasn't. You're making lots of promises, which is something that younger editors often do, I think because it's often a good way to get out of trouble with parents or teachers. But we expect editors to act more-or-less like adults, even those who aren't yet adults. If an adult deliberately harms someone, saying "I promise I won't do this again" isn't a sufficient apology. In fact in some contexts it's considered a red flag for abuse. What people need to hear is a genuine understanding of what you did wrong. Anyone can promise not to repeat a very specific misdeed.

Also, attributing things to your age and autism may have the opposite effect as intended here. If that's what led to this, and when I unblock you you will still be that age and still be autistic, then isn't that saying you will still have the same poor judgment? You're kind of arguing the opposite of what reviewing admins want to hear, which is that you have changed and will continue to change. That said, if this is primarily a maturity thing, I would consider converting this to a three-year temporary block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I made User:Faster than Thunder#What I've learned from my mistakes throughout Wikimedia and put my warnings from others in my own words so as to cope with my age and condition possibly (but not being the only thing) contributing towards this block. Since they are in my own words, I will understand them better when I read them. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 11:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe that if my block is to be reduced, the range should only be an interaction ban from @Asamboi and an editing ban from the User talk namespace, broadly construed. This way, not only can I not rant on Asam, but we can no longer fight with each other. Furthermore, I can report vandals to AIV based only on warnings by other users. Also, I will be able to constructively edit in areas I’m not problematic in but not end up getting into areas I clearly shouldn’t. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 21:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think there's still a disconnect here. Let's try this: Have you read WP:HOUND? Do you think it is relevant to what happened here? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin, I added a relevant bullet point to my appeal. Would you feel comfortable taking this appeal to WP:AN for community review if it doesn't get a response in another week? I don't think you can unblock me yourself because you are the blocking administrator, even if my appeal is all legitimate. I feel like my unblock is my one last chance. I included a handful of self-restraints I plan to enforce if I get unblocked. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 00:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I am allowed to reverse my own block, but am not (yet) convinced that that is the correct course of action. I can take this to AN in a week if you want (or the unblock-reviewer can), but I'll caution you that if your appeal is declined this will become a community ban, at which point no admin would be able to reverse it on their own. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

What is wrong with my appeal now? It now also includes what I won't do if I become unblocked. Is a {{2nd chance}} in order? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 12:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not convinced you understand what you did wrong. I think you understand that you did something that I and others think was wrong, but your addendum to your appeal still gives the implication that some version of what you did—following around someone here based on a sister-wiki conflict, then looking for issues with their edits so you could take them to AN/I—would have been okay. The problem is much deeper than you are acknowledging. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Faster than Thunder, I don't think you should fight vandals or issue warnings at all. That will just get you back into trouble again and that will be painful for both you and the community.

I'm no longer an admin, so this is just my opinion but it's based on watching similar situations over many years.

Focus on other opportunities such as putting your Tamil language skills to work. Anybody can fight vandalism; there are only a few English Wikipedia editors that know Tamil. See WP:TRANSLATE. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

IPBE

As you are no longer a user in good standing, I have revoked WP:IPBE. You are free to reapply if unblocked (and the unblocking admin might choose to just immediately regrant without a request). --Yamla (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)