User talk:Diffuser202512

June 2025

Hello, Diffuser202512, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the welcome ! Sorry but this is a baseless and disrespectful accusation. I just wanted to readd references on the wikipedia page related to diffusion models done by another use as it enhanced the information on the page. If you have issues with recognised research/references please feel free to publish your own research and prove that essential research is just as "cite spam". Thanks ! Diffuser202512 (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting and edit warring to try to force in unreliable links to arxiv and openreview is 'baseless and disrespectful'. Kindly stop trying to spam us with this poorly sourced rubbish - Wikipedia is not a place to spam citations. MrOllie (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop discrediting established and in one of the cases peer reviewed platforms, which serve as a standard in academia, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a place to remove relevant citations. Diffuser202512 (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arxiv and openreview are not 'a standard in academia'. I'm sorry that you apparently got taken in by junk publishing models, but that is not a reason to try to force in these citations. I won't be the one who ends up blocked here if you keep spamming us. MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ? Openreview is a de facto standard peer review platform used for some of the most prestigious conferences such as ICML, NeurIPS or CVPR. Surely the review process is not without its issues and gaps, but as long as it is in fact 'a standard in academia' your accusations lack any arguments and foundation. It is probably pointless to argue with you, but I recommend for you to study the reverse process again to fix the randomness in your actions. Good luck ! Diffuser202512 (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS : with the flow based models that you are trying to censor you might even save some timesteps Diffuser202512 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Diffusion model, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to undo the rightful edits of multiple uses aren't you the one disrupting Wikipedia ? Your methodology of trying to warp the rules into a censorship tool is not going to work. Your behaviour against other users is disrespectful and harms the information present on Wikipedia pages. Diffuser202512 (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising. MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising. Diffuser202512 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2025 (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).

Diffuser202512 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there is no proof for multiple account use or violation of wikipedia policy. The baseless accusations should be proveable when e.g. checking the IP addresses of the accounts. I was solely fighting for academic links added by another user such as arxiv or openreview (platform for review processes in major ML conferences) links to papers. I was made aware of this issue by members of the ML community. MrOllie was the one reverting justified modifications of multiple users (4-5) and faced no such accusations. This is censorship and disrespectful. I didn't know that Wikipedia was run like North Korea. If you believe that widely recognised platforms are unjust, I am looking forward to the surely new and ground breaking conferences and journals that you will create. Diffuser202512 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We haven't, and can't, check your IP address(only checkusers can, but they don't on request). This is based on behavior. Based on the edits and your comment that you were made aware of the issue, I think that you are a meat puppet, which is treated just as sockpuppetry is. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2025 (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.