User talk:Vinluna: Difference between revisions

Line 218: Line 218:

== Request for unblock ==

**{{unblock}}I am requesting review of this block by an uninvolved administrator.**

**{{unblockI am requesting review of this block by an uninvolved administrator.**

I was blocked by an editor who was directly involved in the same content and conduct dispute on Talk:Daniel Andrews and on my user talk page. Under the principles of WP:INVOLVED, I believe a block by an editor who is party to the dispute should be reviewed by an uninvolved admin.

Line 228: Line 228:

I am fully willing to follow Wikipedia’s policies, avoid AI-generated content, and collaborate constructively going forward. I request that an uninvolved administrator review the circumstances of this block and determine whether it should remain or be modified.

Thank you.}}

Thank you. [[User:Vinluna|Vinluna]] ([[User talk:Vinluna#top|talk]]) 11:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

{{Non-administrator comment}} I’ve fixed your template for you. I’m not seeing Ivan’s involvement in the original dispute, can you please clarify? Note that [[WP:INVOLVED]] doesn’t include administrative duties, only if they’re acting as a normal editor. I hope you read this page before quoting it and just need to clarify this part with diffs.

You also need to directly address the concerns raised at ANI that led to your block, as part of your appeal. Ivan carried out the wishes of the editors who voted, it’s not the case that Ivan decided to do this alone.

I also hate to ask, but did you use any AI, LLM or chatbot tools to write this appeal? I’m seeing signs of AI formatting. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 11:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Vinluna!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don’t be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It’s normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don’t worry if you don’t understand everything at first—it’s fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue on the article’s talk page. Be civil, and don’t restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Thanks Tintrent. Vinluna (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were: The comment the reviewer left was:

This is not written as an article for Wikipedia. You have written a newspaper article instead. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the incident, Wikipedia is not here to act as a campaign vehicle. Neutrality does not mean we have to record every aspect of a subject. It means we have to record what is said in multiple reliable secondary sources neutrally.

Sections listing media coverage should never appear. Media coverage that passes WP:42 is to be used as reference material for the facts you state in the article.

A rewrite is required for this to be accepted. Thus means a major exercise not just tidying up

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinluna!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we’d love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I did a complete rewrite focusing on Wiki’s guide based on neutrality, formal tone etc. I also updated citations. I don’t mind updating specific recommendations from this point. I will submit again. Vinluna (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Earth605 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

Earth605^talk 16:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re “This submission appears to be a news report of a single event”

The article spans almost 13 years. It is not a single news event, rather it is a long term event with over 12 years coverage across AFR, The Age, Herald Sun, ABC, News.com.au, Sky News, A Current Affair, FOI developments, expert reviews, parliamentary debate, and multiple legal actions. That said, we understand and indeed want the article to pass all scrutiny. The article has been completely written and it’s ready to submit. Would you be prepared to review it here before submission? Vinluna (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald sun and Sky News should never be used in BLPs. They are unreliable sources. Particularly for anything to do with opponents of the Liberal Party. News.com.au and A Current Affair should be used carefully. FOI and court documents should be avoided per WP:BLPPRIMARY. TarnishedPath^talk 02:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia 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:

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TarnishedPath was: The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

TarnishedPath^talk 02:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Newslinger. A comment that you recently posted to Talk:Daniel Andrews seemed to be generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology). Communication is at the root of Wikipedia’s decision-making process, and it is presumed that editors possess the ability to come up with their own ideas. Your comment may have been collapsed per the relevant guideline. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 05:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It was you who collapsed the chat, so you know who collapsed it. I have a screenshot for the record. In relation to the Herald Sun, I repeat as I did in the talk, this publication appears at WP:NEWSORG. The publication has been cited thousands of times across Wikipedia. If you have an issue with the publication, you can lodge the issue and wait for the review. The first matter and by association the Herald-Sun references are now with ANI. At this stage it is prudent to await the results of that matter before proceeding further with this article and request we pause this chat. Thank you. Vinluna (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the Herald Sun, I repeat as I did in the talk, this publication appears at WP:NEWSORG.

No, it does not. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is related to your complaint this morning at ANI which was clearly written by a large language model contrary to our guideline on LLM use. Being able to communicate and write in your own words is a required competency to edit Wikipedia. You have been repeatedly asked to stop and write your comments yourself, yet you have continued submitting an article draft with LLM content and submitting complaints written by an algorithm. Since you would not comply voluntarily, you are now blocked.

If you wish to appeal your block, write your appeal in your own words. If you submit an appeal written by an LLM, it will be summarily declined and your talk page access will be revoked. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an ANI decision (blocking me) or editors? Vinluna (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? … Editor or ANI? Vinluna (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I wrote this entire text in my own words.

According to your comment, you blocked me because I lodged a complaint with ANI. Why would you do so when ANI are perfectly capable of resolving the complaint? Additionally, you’re blocking me because you claim (without citing specific examples) that I am “persistently making disruptive edits”, again, without citing examples.

I refer you to the full chat, where, I have not made a single edit, clean or disruptive. Therefore, your reasoning to block me is invalid.

The reason I contacted ‘talk’ was to “suggest an edit” and request advice on how to do it best. I did not make an actual edit. I only suggested the edit, and gave my reasons for doing so.

There is no evidence of me being disruptive or intentionally violating WIKI rules. The chat transcript clearly shows I remain focused on the content, professional and respectful.

Relying on, and reminding editors of WIKI rules, is not disruptive.

It may be frustrating to an editor who for some reason, believes the Herald-Sun — only one of the references I use — is an unreliable news source. This is an absurd assertion. The Herald-Sun is Victoria’s highest selling newspaper and a respected news organisation. Is is listed on WIKI’s allowed news sources, a point I reiterated several times. It is the editor at fault here, not me.

The WIKI environment isn’t easy for persons unfamiliar to navigate. It has been a steep learning curve having to find and have explained the various rules and categories. On that, I used AI assistance — and for that very reason.

I could not find a WIKI rule that prohibits AI to explain WIKI rules, their meaning and how they apply to various situations. The AI prohibition applies, as far as I can determine, to content creation. On that point, I fully agree. And that said, it does not apply in this instance, despite some editors and your accusations.

The edit and any article I am submitting was written by myself and my colleague — both with backgrounds in journalism, business management and teaching. We are not novices to writing articles, being objective and neutral. I might use a grammar and spell check to ensure text is clean, but doing so does not imply or assert our handwritten, or, typed content — if we’re to be exact, should be deemed to be machine written.

I urge you to look back over the entire chat. In it, you will see sound and respectful reasoning from my part. I want to return to the suggested edit, and collaborate to make it sound. If an editor disagrees with any portion, then we can discuss it in the talk. It’s only one small section — not the entire biography. Vinluna (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked because you lodged a complaint or used AI to explain WIKI rules. You were blocked because you used LLM and kept lying about it, as you continue to do so in this very message. Northern Moonlight 23:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is the Herald-Sun listed on WIKI’s allowed news sources? It’s not on WP:NEWSORG, which is merely a discussion of news agencies and their use as sources, and it’s not on WP:RSPSS.

The difficulty with using AI to explain Wikipedia’s rules is that it makes those rules up. You are at least the second person this week who’s been blocked after repeatedly asserting that a non-existent policy/discussion supports your position. This makes it extremely clear to everyone that either you’re using an AI or you’re not competent enough to edit. You may wish to read WP:LLMCHAT and WP:AIFAIL for more on why using LLMs/AIs anywhere on Wikipedia is not a wise decision. Meadowlark (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2013 Blairgowrie collision and the Bike Boy controversy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2013 Blairgowrie collision and the Bike Boy controversy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:2013 Blairgowrie collision and the Bike Boy controversy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The herald-sun is Victoria’s highest selling newspaper. It outsells The Age, The Guardian and every other newspaper in the state. It is not listed on WP:RSP or WP:DEPRECATE.

Re: (You are at least the second person this week who’s been blocked after repeatedly asserting that a non-existent policy/discussion supports your position. This makes it extremely clear to everyone that either you’re using an AI or you’re not competent enough to edit. )

You and other editors should stop accusing me of lying. The articles and suggestions I submitted are hand written. This I have reiterated several times. It seems some editors have confused my research into “WIKI rules” as “writing content”. That’s not the case at all.

Now, can we end the hostility and try working in a collaborative environment?

Of everyone that has joined the pile-up on me, you seem a reasonable person.

We’re adults. So why don’t you lead the way?

Let’s start by removing blocks and attempts to have me banned from WIKI.

Then let’s you and I collaborate, and you can help make me a better contributor by guiding me through the hoops.

Isn’t that a win-win?

~~~~ Vinluna (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vinluna, only an admin can remove a block after you’ve successfully appealed following the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.

The problem is you keep asserting that Wikipedia already deemed this source as reliable but can’t give any links to discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard to back up your claim.

You also generated references that were tagged as coming from ChatGPT, proving that you did use AI to edit despite saying you didn’t.

Unless you address those problems in an unblock appeal, you won’t get anywhere. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI editors cannot give any links to back up their claims that the herald Sun is unreliable. They made the claim, not me. So the burden is on the editors to prove their claim. My response was second to their first action.

I addressed the “tagged as coming from ChatGPT”. And besides, they were ‘URL’s’, not ‘content’. The tag is easily removed. It’s just a URL that works perfectly without the tag. I can remove the tag or go back to the original source.

To date, ANI have not responded formally, at least to my knowledge.

I take your advice on board and will appeal the block – thank you. Vinluna (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include disputed material in an article – your source is disputed, therefore the onus is on you to prove it’s suitable for inclusion.

If the reliability of a source is disputed, you should go to the Reliable sources noticeboard to reach a consensus with other editors – if the source is reliable then this shouldn’t take long. Once a source is deemed reliable, you can use it going forwards and so can other editors – this is something that is beneficial to everyone.

Wikipedia runs on consensus, so you can’t skip this step if there’s a dispute. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will refer to the reliable sources noticeboard. I appreciate your help. I’m still learning my around the wiki environment. Vinluna (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to appeal the ban request and my proposed article and suggested update on another page. I read through the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Can you advise me the how should proceed from here, as in which . I’m ready to appeal. I understand all the chats are logged and I’m fine with that — I believe the logged chats will help my appeal.

I cannot find the relative appeal process on the appeal page guide. Can you please provide me with the page where I can directly lodge the appeal? I am ready to do so having read the guide.

Thanks. Vinluna (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You lodge your appeal against your block following the process in the block notice above. Please read that notice carefully and completely, and follow the instructions correctly.

This is entirely separate from any draft article. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Appealing a block is linked on the guide and gives more explicit instructions on how to appeal. You might find it easier to follow that page instead?

To be clear, blocked editors can only appeal their block – anything else (drafts, sources etc.) can only be discussed by unblocked editors. Keep your appeal as focused as you can.

The reason entered for your block is: “Competence is required: persistent submission of article content and discussion comments generated using large language model content tools after being repeatedly asked to stop”

With this in mind, you might find it helpful to read WP:LLMCIR and the rest of that same page, as it goes into some of the context behind this decision. I’d also review the ANI thread to make sure you don’t miss anything important. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is now being reviewed under ANI, any enforcement action prior to the outcome would be premature. As the matter is under administrator review, I won’t be commenting further here until an uninvolved admin has responded. Any conduct concerns or further comments should be directed to the ANI thread so everything can be looked at together. Thank you. Vinluna (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am requesting review of this block by an uninvolved administrator.**

I acknowledge that there was concern about the use of AI assistance. I wrote my own comments and used tools only for grammar and clarity. When questions were raised, I asked for guidance, stepped back from discussion, and attempted to resolve the matter through appropriate dispute resolution processes.

Before I was able to bring the matter to ANI, I was indefinitely blocked by an editor involved in the dispute, which I believe warrants independent review.

Thank you.

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=I am requesting review of this block by an uninvolved administrator.**
I was blocked by an editor who was directly involved in the same content and conduct dispute on Talk:Daniel Andrews and on my user talk page. Under the principles of WP:INVOLVED, I believe a block by an editor who is party to the dispute should be reviewed by an uninvolved admin.
I acknowledge that there was concern about the use of AI assistance. I wrote my own comments and used tools only for grammar and clarity. When questions were raised, I asked for guidance, stepped back from discussion, and attempted to resolve the matter through appropriate dispute resolution processes.
Before I was able to bring the matter to ANI, I was indefinitely blocked by an editor involved in the dispute, which I believe warrants independent review.
I am fully willing to follow Wikipedia’s policies, avoid AI-generated content, and collaborate constructively going forward. I request that an uninvolved administrator review the circumstances of this block and determine whether it should remain or be modified.
Thank you. |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 am requesting review of this block by an uninvolved administrator.**
I was blocked by an editor who was directly involved in the same content and conduct dispute on Talk:Daniel Andrews and on my user talk page. Under the principles of WP:INVOLVED, I believe a block by an editor who is party to the dispute should be reviewed by an uninvolved admin.
I acknowledge that there was concern about the use of AI assistance. I wrote my own comments and used tools only for grammar and clarity. When questions were raised, I asked for guidance, stepped back from discussion, and attempted to resolve the matter through appropriate dispute resolution processes.
Before I was able to bring the matter to ANI, I was indefinitely blocked by an editor involved in the dispute, which I believe warrants independent review.
I am fully willing to follow Wikipedia’s policies, avoid AI-generated content, and collaborate constructively going forward. I request that an uninvolved administrator review the circumstances of this block and determine whether it should remain or be modified.
Thank you. |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 am requesting review of this block by an uninvolved administrator.**
I was blocked by an editor who was directly involved in the same content and conduct dispute on Talk:Daniel Andrews and on my user talk page. Under the principles of WP:INVOLVED, I believe a block by an editor who is party to the dispute should be reviewed by an uninvolved admin.
I acknowledge that there was concern about the use of AI assistance. I wrote my own comments and used tools only for grammar and clarity. When questions were raised, I asked for guidance, stepped back from discussion, and attempted to resolve the matter through appropriate dispute resolution processes.
Before I was able to bring the matter to ANI, I was indefinitely blocked by an editor involved in the dispute, which I believe warrants independent review.
I am fully willing to follow Wikipedia’s policies, avoid AI-generated content, and collaborate constructively going forward. I request that an uninvolved administrator review the circumstances of this block and determine whether it should remain or be modified.
Thank you. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(Non-administrator comment) I’ve fixed your template for you. I’m not seeing Ivan’s involvement in the original dispute, can you please clarify? Note that WP:INVOLVED doesn’t include administrative duties, only if they’re acting as a normal editor. I hope you read this page before quoting it and just need to clarify this part with diffs.

I also hate to ask, but did you use any AI, LLM or chatbot tools to write this appeal? I’m seeing signs of AI formatting. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment