User talk:Apep the Serpent God: Difference between revisions

Line 131: Line 131:

*::I agree, six months is plenty of time. But @[[User:Apep the Serpent God|Apep the Serpent God]], if you’d like to comment? — [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 21:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

*:::Perhaps sudden wasn’t the right word, but it was 6 months only because they were literally unable to make another appeal before then, and they made this latest request as soon as they were able to. The amount of time that has passed isn’t as material as the behavior that led to it given that there is no indication that there is any understanding of (this part of) the issue nor that it will not be an ongoing issue if the editor is unblocked, which is my concern. – [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 01:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

*::::@[[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] Regarding your concerns, I assure you that I have no reason to repeat my past mistakes if I am unblocked. If I go back to my past behavior, I will simply get blocked again, and since there is no valid reason for my behavior, this block will be completely legitimate and permanent. Also, regarding the 6 months I was blocked, I must say that if you had unblocked me on the same day I was blocked 6 months ago, I would not have behaved in a way that would have put my account at risk of being blocked, in order to protect my account from being blocked. I honestly think that this 6 months of blocking was not only unnecessary but also unfair, but it was by no means ineffective and the experience not only had a huge impact on me personally, but the 6 months I was away from editing, was enough time to reflect on the situation and why things escalated this way. Now I fully understand what went wrong and I will refrain from any behavior that would cause another problem. That said, I am committed to editing constructively and responsibly if I am unblocked. I hope this answer makes things clearer. Thank you. [[User:Apep the Serpent God|Apep the Serpent God]] ([[User talk:Apep the Serpent God#top|talk]]) 05:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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).

Apep the Serpent God (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked following a content dispute where I challenged the addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material, specifically information based on a Reddit screenshot and fan translation. I cited Wikipedia’s core policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR in my objections.

Concerns were raised about my use of AI-generated text to help reference policies. I now understand that some editors interpreted that as a violation of WP:LLMTALK, although the content I posted was focused on reinforcing policy-based reasoning. I did not disrupt articles or violate any behavioral policies.

I believe this block was an overreach based more on disagreement over sourcing and tone than actual disruption. That said, I am willing to move forward collaboratively, avoid further use of AI-assisted content if required, and continue editing constructively in line with Wikipedia’s policies. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining this unblock request because it does not adequately address the reason for the block, and appears to be LLM-generated commentary. We are not interested in hearing what an LLM has to say about your block; an unblock request should be written in your own words because it is you that needs to demonstrate understanding of what the issues are.
Your continuing use of LLM-generated walls of text does violate WP:LLMTALK. Walls of text like this one blatantly misrepresent the content being cited to the point of disruption, and shows that this LLM-generated text is being copied without checking its accuracy. For example, that comment says that WP:NOTENGLISH clearly states: “Wikipedia articles should not contain material based solely on non-English-language sources without reliable English-language sources.” However, neither Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (which is what WP:NOTENGLISH redirects to) nor WP:NONENG (which is what User:silviaASH later clarified is what they were referring to) says this, especially not verbatim as the quotation suggests. The intention may have been to have the LLM focused on reinforcing policy-based reasoning, but all it did was generate walls of text that misrepresented Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines while failing to address the issues that brought you to WP:ANI.

I highly suggest you read WP:GAB (particularly WP:NOTTHEM before making any further unblock requests, which should be made in your own words. Aoidh (talk) 07:53, 7 April 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.

Apep the Serpent God (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not requesting to be unblocked at this time. I am writing to request that you review an ongoing issue regarding the content added to the “BanG Dream! Ave Mujica” article by the user SilviaASH.

The information they’ve added is based on a Reddit screenshot and a fan translation of an interview from Megami Magazine in Reddit, which can’t be proved if it’s really from the magazine or if the content is unaltered. They claim to have provided a scan of the magazine other than the one and only available screenshot on Reddit, but they have not actually provided it for verification. The content is based solely on an unverifiable screenshot from Reddit, with input from another user who is not a native speaker. This is essentially a “trust me bro” source, without solid documentation or any way for others to independently verify it.

Even while blocked, I care about Wikipedia’s standards. I respectfully ask that an uninvolved administrator review the material in question and consider whether it should remain. Thank you. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you aren’t asking to be unblocked, then don’t make an unblock request. While blocked, you may only use this page to request to be unblocked, you may not use it to address concerns about an article until you are unblocked(when you can use the article talk page). 331dot (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @331dot:, I understand the guidelines regarding unblock requests. So, as you asked, I am not using the unblock template. Since I can’t use the article talk page while blocked, I’m trusting you and respectfully asking you to review the situation yourself.

The issue concerns the article on “BanG Dream! Ave Mujica” and the content added by the user SilviaASH.

The information they’ve added is based on a Reddit screenshot and a fan translation of an interview from Megami Magazine in Reddit, which can’t be proven to be directly from the magazine or that the content is unaltered.

They claim to have provided a scan of the magazine other than the one and only available screenshot on Reddit, but they have not actually provided it for verification. The content is based solely on an unverifiable screenshot from Reddit, with input from another user who is not a native speaker. This is essentially a “trust me bro” source, without solid documentation or any way for others to independently verify it.

I’m not asking to be unblocked at this time. I only hope the issue can be fairly reviewed and that Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and reliable sourcing (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR) are upheld.

Thank you, Apep the Serpent God (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you’re asking for the dispute to be “fairly reviewed” when you regard the other side of the dispute as “nonsense”. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@silviaASH – I respectfully asked you, expressing myself in my own words—so why did you respond the way you did? When you refuse to engage in respectful dialogue and instead resort to insults and accusations, what else can it be called if not nonsense? Apep the Serpent God (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not dignifying this with any further response. I’ve said all I had to say, you haven’t been listening and are clearly either unwilling or unable to communicate properly. The admins can review the edit history of your talk page for my take on the situation if need be. Good luck to you. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While blocked, you may only use this page to request to be unblocked. You may not use it to air your concerns or grievances with an article or anything else. If you want to do that, you need to get unblocked first. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Again there’s no need for any dialogue on these matters as long as you’re blocked. Whether you regard it as nonsense or whatever, you should only be using your talk page for requests to be unblocked. This could in theory include some questions to help you understand why you were blocked and how you have to change provided you keep the focus on trying to understand your block rather than faulting others or claiming you were wrong blocked. However it most definitely does not include religating any disputes or anything else which isn’t intended to lead up to an unblock. No one owes you respectful dialogue or anything else. Of course they shouldn’t come here to attack you or anything, but you’ve lost the right discuss content issues, or to expect anyone else to engage with you about your concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apep the Serpent God (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I referred to Wikipedia’s policies in a discussion with another user, using AI to help me organize my thoughts and better explain the policies I was referencing — something that was reported by the user. The content I cited was based directly on Wikipedia’s own guidelines. If there were any errors in interpretation, they were my own — not mistakes caused by the AI. When asked about it, I was honest and upfront. I explained to an administrator that I had used AI for assistance in wording, and they appreciated my transparency. They simply asked me not to use AI in future discussions, and I agreed without hesitation.

Despite that, some other administrators continued to press the issue, even though it had already been resolved. Their tone came across as less about seeking clarity and more about pressuring me. When the conversation shifted into something that felt increasingly hostile and repetitive, I chose to step back rather than continue engaging. Ultimately, one of the admins blocked me — not because of the AI usage itself, which had already been addressed — but because I didn’t respond to their continued questioning. I believe that was an unfair escalation, especially considering I had already complied with the initial request and was trying to disengage from an unproductive and uncomfortable exchange.

Given all of this, I kindly ask you to let me know your final decision regarding whether my account will be unblocked or if I should refrain from making further unblock requests. If unblocked, I will limit my contributions to minor edits only and will refrain from engaging in revert disputes, instead seeking admin input when necessary. For these reasons, I believe keeping my account unblocked would be helpful for me personally, as I’d still like to contribute in a limited, non-disruptive way. Thank you. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If the error was indeed your own, where did you get the quote that WP:NOTENGLISH clearly states: “Wikipedia articles should not contain material based solely on non-English-language sources without reliable English-language sources.” here? It was not merely an error in interpretation, it was blatantly false and directly contradicted by WP:NONENG (WP:NONENGLISH isn’t even the correct link, which a person reading would have picked up on, whereas the LLM did not). If it is you that is misrepresenting P&Gs so drastically by conjuring quotes that not only don’t exist but say the opposite of the actual verbiage, that’s a more concerning issue than any LLM usage. That said, it seems unlikely that this error didn’t originate through reliance on LLM-generated text. The format and nature of that error is highly common with LLM-generated text, so if the LLM didn’t generate it then where did this quote come from? – Aoidh (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: This was my understanding of the following part, but it’s also based on the situation at hand where the source is non-English and there is no reliable translation available to support or verify its validity: “As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page”

I believe this suggests that editors are not allowed to rely solely on non-English sources without also providing reliable English-language sources or English translations that validate or clarify the content of those non-English sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apep the Serpent God (talk • contribs)

How does “request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source” (emphasis added) become an English translation? A translation is by definition not a quotation. If it’s something from some other source it’s not even from the original source. And the very next section deals with translations anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: A reliable English translation of a non-English source essentially serves as an English-language source for verification. A translation is still based on the original content, just in a different language, and is necessary to ensure other editors can verify the information. Without a translation, it would be impossible for others to check the source if they don’t speak the original language. The guideline doesn’t distinguish between a “quotation” and a “translation” when it comes to making non-English sources verifiable. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to question your ability to comprehend what you are reading in English if you say that. A quotation of the original source clearly refers to a whatever the source says in the original language and nothing else. The very next line says “If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote“. How on earth does this not “distinguish between a “quotation” and a “translation”? The section also makes it clear while a RS translation is preferred it’s not required. Note also the whole part dealing with non English sources makes it clear this is only something needed if there is dispute. If you’re unblocked and want to dispute it well whatever, fine. But there’s nothing to suggest it’s always required to even provide a quotation let alone a translation but you’re treating it like a fundamental violation when the section makes it clear it’s not. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) BTW while a translation is required when quoting within the article, technically it isn’t mentioned in the case of simply providing a quotation on the article talk page for verification. If the person who wants to verify the original source themselves understands the language well enough they may not care about a translation and will only want the quotation. However since the person who provided the quotation must have somehow translated it, it’s reasonable to ask them to provide a translation if needed. But ultimately if someone has provided a quotation of the original source, and a translation, they’ve reasonable fulfilled all the policy requires of them. If someone else want to dispute the translation especially since this isn’t a BLP or something where it matters, it’s reasonably their responsibility to provide their own alternative translation. Disputing the providence of some random screen capture is more reasonable but since efforts are being made to get the original and confirm it, it seems fine to just let it be until this happens. Again this isn’t something that really matters, so if someone really did provide a fake screen capture on Reddit (or wherever it was) well whatever, well find out in a week or so and fix it then. Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I think there’s still a misunderstanding here. The guideline clearly says that when quoting a non-English source, a translation should accompany the quote. This is essential because, without a translation, other editors cannot verify the content, particularly if the source is disputed. So, it’s not just about preference—it’s about verifiability in disputed cases, which is why I highlighted the role of the translation in my earlier comment. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edit conflicted but no it doesn’t. This is only required when quoting in the article. In any case a translation was provided so this is all moot. But more importantly, how on earth does any of this support your claim “that editors are not allowed to rely solely on non-English sources without also providing reliable English-language sources or English translations that validate or clarify the content of those non-English sources“? Frankly this is a case where a machine translation is potentially fine which our policy makes clear is acceptable in some cases. There’s definitely no requirement for a translation from a reliable source. But also, you’ve missed my more important point. There is no requirement for a quotation or translation anywhere unless there is dispute. So why on earth are you treating it like it’s a fundamental requirement when it clearly isn’t? I’m fairly sure the vast majority of our uses of non-English sources have never had a quotation or a translation of that quotation. And that’s perfectly fine because ultimately as with a lot of things (e.g. obscure books) while information needs to be verifiable, it sometimes can be quite difficult to actually do so. I mean in many ways, it’s probably easier for me to verify that a Spanish online source supports what our article says than it is for me to verify some obscure English book, although I don’t personally speak Spanish nor am I friends with anyone who does. So we do have to trust editors competence. It’s why editors who misrepresent what sources say, whether they’re English or some other language, are such a big problem. Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your I believe this suggests that comment, it absolutely does not suggest this in any way. It also didn’t answer the question: if the LLM didn’t generate that obviously LLM-generated quote, where did you get that quotation from? Acknowledging that you used the LLM-generated text without checking it, that it generated false information, and that you understand why this is problematic would go much further than trying to suggest that you were simply using AI to help me organize my thoughts, which is not borne out by the evidence of your past comments. If these are your own thoughts, where did this quote come from? – Aoidh (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: Thank you for your response. To clarify, the statement you referred to wasn’t a direct quote from the guidelines, but rather my summarization of the information I read on those pages. I summarized the key points based on my understanding of the policy.
Regarding your mention of AI: AI doesn’t generate summaries or reworded versions of the content—it simply searches and quotes directly from the original sources. The text I provided was based on the information directly available in the Wiki guidelines, not from any external AI-generated source.
I hope this clears up the misunderstanding. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you forgot the part where Aoidh said if it is you that is misrepresenting P&Gs so drastically by conjuring quotes that not only don’t exist but say the opposite of the actual verbiage, that’s a more concerning issue than any LLM usage. Far from clear up misunderstandings, if anything you’re giving the impression that even if you’re not using LLMs and did read the policy and honestly summarize it in your own words, you understood that policy very poorly, and not only won’t directly admit your misunderstanding but do not find that misunderstanding to be of much concern. This is not instilling confidence in your ability to be a productive and collaborative editor. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That is not an accurate assessment of how LLMs generate responses. However, if it was indeed you that misrepresented the (wrong) page and made it seem as if you were directly quoting the Verifiability policy rather than the LLM having done so, then that’s a bigger issue than the LLM misrepresenting the policy and you copying it in error. When you put something in quotation marks like that, that means you are directly quoting the relevant source. In this case not only is that not a quote, but it is directly contradicted by WP:NONENG and does not explain why you cited the wrong thing (WP:NOTENGLISH) if you were the one that read it. Whether you’re misrepresenting your use of LLMs or misrepresenting policy, neither one is constructive, and an unblock at this point would not be helpful to anyone. – Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: I want to clarify that the statement I made was a summary of my understanding of the rules, not a direct quotation. It was not meant to be a direct citation of the policy, and I did not intend for it to be read as such. The point I was trying to make was relevant to the context of a non-reliable, non-English source—and I summarized the rules as I understood them, based on what I had read.

If you believe this is a bigger issue than the LLM’s role, I cannot pretend otherwise. I’m being honest here, and I don’t understand why my unblock would cause problems. Throughout my time on Wikipedia, I have been largely inactive, with most of my edits focused on anime pages like World Dai Star, where I always relied on reliable sources, such as the official pages, to ensure the accuracy of my edits. You can see this in my contributions, where I always applied strict sourcing rules, just as I did when I raised concerns about non-reliable and non-English sources.

I’ve always followed the same rules and applied them to my own edits. Now, because I objected to another user’s use of an unreliable source, I’m suddenly being painted as a troublemaker? Seems like standing by the rules is the real problem here. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not getting it. Also whatever the merits of your past contributions (and I think those should probably be getting checked for accuracy if your approach to this dispute represents your editing philosophy as a whole), they are not relevant here. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so, for the record, I did go and have a look at Apep’s contributions to World Dai Star. Who Wrote That? states that they wrote about 50 percent of the article, although that doesn’t include the plot summaries in the episode tables, which they also did write. True to their word, they appear to have only used the official website of the series as a source although they’re obviously mistaken if they think that’s the definition of reliable sources. Their contributions do not appear unconstructive, but there is now some concern that they may have asked ChatGPT to summarize the episodes for them. Thankfully they only ever edited this article before challenging my edit to BanG Dream! Ave Mujica, so if there is any damage, the extent of it is that possibly some plot summaries and character descriptions of this anime and/or maybe some song titles are wrong. ~~Maybe slightly more urgent if it turns out the episode summaries are directly copied from somewhere and constitute a WP:COPYVIO.~~ WP:EARWIG doesn’t report any copyvios in the current version of the article, so it’s probably okay on that front. Someone will get around to fixing that if need be, I hope. None of this cancels out their recent disruption and current misrepresentation of policy, and definitely it doesn’t make their contributions look super vital to improving the encyclopedia, not that that would ever be a valid argument.

Also, they made those contributions over the span of like five days sixteen months ago and never edited again until they crawled out of the woodwork to challenge me on this. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, from the currently open unblock request and comments on down, the GPTZero scores for Apep are 84%, 47%, 79%, 100%, 100%, 84%. Just to show that it’s not simply the formal nature of the Wikipedia process discussion, all other comments made by others since the unblock request: 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 6%, 1%, 1%, 1%, 0%. On the one that’s 6%, it was the quoted section from Apep that trigged the positive. These are not perfect, but given the sample size, when coupled with Apep continuing to post vague replies and being unable to provide specific information an LLM would have trouble addressing (like where they got the specific quote), I would suggest that Apep not only did not stop using LLMs to answer, but is nearly exclusively using LLMs to answer questions. I think anyone responding is simply arguing second-hand with ChatGPT or a similar LLM, and the case has been very firmly made for a WP:CIR concern. If Apep is unblocked, I would hope it’s with a strict no-AI condition given the history; that means no “clarifying” or “double-checking” or “summarizing” or in a box, with a fox, on a train, or in the rain. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I honestly do not think that is gonna happen. They’ve been given ample opportunities to stop replying with LLM and directly address the reasons for their block and have only continued wasting time and bytes making us all read their vague drivel about how non-English sources aren’t reliable. They’re almost certainly not getting unblocked and at this point I’d very strongly support revoking their talk page access. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per UTRS appeal #103348, this user has been banned from WP:UTRS for six months. —Yamla (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is closed, and TPA restored. Good luck. — asilvering (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Apep the Serpent God (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, first, I’d like to thank asilvering for reviewing my UTRS request and restoring my talk page access.

I would like to ask for an unblock. Six months ago, I was blocked because of the way I handled a dispute. The reason I was blocked was that I found a user’s edit without a valid source and asked an AI tool to help me find a rule on wikipedia that would prove my point. Unfortunately, the AI pulled up something that turned out to be nonexistent. And ironically, my own understanding of the policy at that time was just as flawed as the AI, and my insistence on it led the admins to decide to ban me.

It’s been over six months now and I’ve had enough time to reflect on my behavior. Now I fully understand my mistakes and I understand that i was completely wrong for relying on AI tools and that I certainly shouldn’t have argued like that and insisted on my incorrect interpretation of the rules.

I am truly sorry for the trouble I caused and if you kindly unblock me, I would solely focus on constructive editing based on reliable sources and will not use AI tools for anything related to disputes or policy interpretation. I really value this account and have learned a lot from this experience.. I respectfully request an opportunity to return and contribute positively. Appreciate you considering my request. Best regards,

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.

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=Hello, first, I'd like to thank [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] for reviewing my UTRS request and restoring my talk page access.  
I would like to ask for an unblock. Six months ago, I was blocked because of the way I handled a dispute. The reason I was blocked was that I found a user's edit without a valid source and asked an AI tool to help me find a rule on wikipedia that would prove my point. Unfortunately, the AI pulled up something that turned out to be nonexistent. And ironically, my own understanding of the policy at that time was just as flawed as the AI, and my insistence on it led the admins to decide to ban me.
It's been over six months now and I've had enough time to reflect on my behavior. Now I fully understand my mistakes and I understand that i was completely wrong for relying on AI tools and that I certainly shouldn't have argued like that and insisted on my incorrect interpretation of the rules.

I am truly sorry for the trouble I caused and if you kindly unblock me, I would solely focus on constructive editing based on reliable sources and will not use AI tools for anything related to disputes or policy interpretation. I really value this account and have learned a lot from this experience.. I respectfully request an opportunity to return and contribute positively. Appreciate you considering my request. Best regards, |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=Hello, first, I'd like to thank [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] for reviewing my UTRS request and restoring my talk page access.  
I would like to ask for an unblock. Six months ago, I was blocked because of the way I handled a dispute. The reason I was blocked was that I found a user's edit without a valid source and asked an AI tool to help me find a rule on wikipedia that would prove my point. Unfortunately, the AI pulled up something that turned out to be nonexistent. And ironically, my own understanding of the policy at that time was just as flawed as the AI, and my insistence on it led the admins to decide to ban me.
It's been over six months now and I've had enough time to reflect on my behavior. Now I fully understand my mistakes and I understand that i was completely wrong for relying on AI tools and that I certainly shouldn't have argued like that and insisted on my incorrect interpretation of the rules.

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, first, I'd like to thank [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] for reviewing my UTRS request and restoring my talk page access.  
I would like to ask for an unblock. Six months ago, I was blocked because of the way I handled a dispute. The reason I was blocked was that I found a user's edit without a valid source and asked an AI tool to help me find a rule on wikipedia that would prove my point. Unfortunately, the AI pulled up something that turned out to be nonexistent. And ironically, my own understanding of the policy at that time was just as flawed as the AI, and my insistence on it led the admins to decide to ban me.
It's been over six months now and I've had enough time to reflect on my behavior. Now I fully understand my mistakes and I understand that i was completely wrong for relying on AI tools and that I certainly shouldn't have argued like that and insisted on my incorrect interpretation of the rules.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, I wanted to let you know that AI policy has changed recently and it’s use is strongly discouraged for article generation and Talk pages.

Would you commit to avoiding AI/LLM/chatbot use entirely, since this was what caused your block?

It might also be helpful to revisit the April discussion and give your understanding of that aspect of reliable sources, since other editors were worried that you weren’t quite getting what the problem was with your interpretation. This should help an admin make a full and fair assessment of your appeal as quickly as possible. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger, @Aoidh, are there any questions you’d like to ask here? For my own part, I don’t think we need an LLM restriction in this case, given that they’ve said I understand that i was completely wrong for relying on AI tools and that I certainly shouldn’t have argued like that and insisted on my incorrect interpretation of the rules. — asilvering (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) As the user with whom Apep was in a dispute in the first place, I’d like to note that the issue was not only them relying on the LLM’s faulty interpretation of policy (though that was a major part of it), but also their insistence on replying with text generated by the LLM on talk pages and refusal to directly engage without using it to filter their opinions. Promising not to use it to interpret policy or engage in disputes is all well and good, but I’d also personally like to see some firm and explicit clarification that they don’t intend to use it for any other aspect of editing or communication either. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case a review of the full context is needed (by anyone, including Apep), the discussions which triggered the ANI report that led to the block are archived here:

silviaASH (inquire within) 23:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a restriction, or at least a promise, not to use LLMs anywhere on Wikipedia, but the “not in disputes” is a very good start and the unblock request does seem to me to be entirely genuine. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Sonnet, @asilvering, @ silviaASH, @The Bushranger:
Regarding the concerns about AI/LLM use, I want to state clearly and without any exception that I will not use AI, chatbots, or LLM tools anywhere on wikipedia. This includes article editing, discussions, policy or content disputes, etc. I fully understand now that such tools should not be involved here. From now on, all my editing and communication will be written directly by me. About the April discussions, I now understand that the problem was my own misunderstanding of how reliable sources work, especially regarding unsourced material and the use of unofficial translations. My interpretation at that time was incorrect, and insisting on it only made the situation worse. Truth be told, I’m still not happy with that way of sourcing, but now that I know they are acceptable according to Wikipedia rules, I don’t have any more arguments about it. I understand the expectations now and will follow sourcing policies strictly. I am committed to editing constructively and responsibly if I am unblocked. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) In that case, I personally have no objections to your unblock request being accepted. If you have any other concerns about policies regarding sourcing or any other matter, I don’t think I or any other editor will take issue with you discussing potential changes to those policies if you are unblocked, provided that you do so in a non-disruptive manner, and abide by any consensus and policy that has already been established until and unless those policies change. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I’m not an admin, but since I was pinged I’m sure this wasn’t written by AI (it doesn’t look like it but I ran it through several detectors just in case) and I agree with @SilviaASH.

@Apep the Serpent God In case this hasn’t been mentioned already, you can always take advantage of Wikipedia:Third opinion if you want someone else’s take on a situation and you’ve reached an impasse with another editor. There are also other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes if things look like they’re getting out of hand.

Always consider the possibility that you might be wrong, even when you’re absolutely sure you’re right.

Otherwise, sometimes things happen on Wikipedia that we don’t agree with. We should try to change them if we really believe it’s going to benefit to the project as a whole, but it’s also important to realise when we’re not getting anywhere and should bow out gracefully.

That’s why Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass is such a popular page! Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no objections to unblocking. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I have concerns about the persistent dishonesty when confronted about their LLM usage. With the context of their previous statements, this sudden and unexplained change feels more like a “I’m saying what I should so I get unblocked” than any sort of understanding and willingness to learn and correct based on feedback. Even though it was very unconvincing, that attempt at deception has not been addressed in their statements, and I don’t think they should be unblocked at this time. If a reviewing administrator feels otherwise please feel free to take whatever action you feel is appropriate, but I have serious outstanding concerns about their previous behavior that has not been addressed. – Aoidh (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6 months ago isn’t that sudden. Fwiw, I think an unblock is worth the risk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, six months is plenty of time. But @Apep the Serpent God, if you’d like to comment? — asilvering (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps sudden wasn’t the right word, but it was 6 months only because they were literally unable to make another appeal before then, and they made this latest request as soon as they were able to. The amount of time that has passed isn’t as material as the behavior that led to it given that there is no indication that there is any understanding of (this part of) the issue nor that it will not be an ongoing issue if the editor is unblocked, which is my concern. – Aoidh (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh Regarding your concerns, I assure you that I have no reason to repeat my past mistakes if I am unblocked. If I go back to my past behavior, I will simply get blocked again, and since there is no valid reason for my behavior, this block will be completely legitimate and permanent. Also, regarding the 6 months I was blocked, I must say that if you had unblocked me on the same day I was blocked 6 months ago, I would not have behaved in a way that would have put my account at risk of being blocked, in order to protect my account from being blocked. I honestly think that this 6 months of blocking was not only unnecessary but also unfair, but it was by no means ineffective and the experience not only had a huge impact on me personally, but the 6 months I was away from editing, was enough time to reflect on the situation and why things escalated this way. Now I fully understand what went wrong and I will refrain from any behavior that would cause another problem. That said, I am committed to editing constructively and responsibly if I am unblocked. Just to clarify: everything I said about the block being “unnecessary” simply reflects how I personally felt at the time. This is not intended to challenge the decision that was made, nor does it mean that I am avoiding responsibility. I fully understand why the block happened, and I am not questioning the admins’ judgment. My intention is simply to explain my honest perspective while understanding my mistakes and not repeating them. I hope this answer makes things clearer. Thank you. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply