Hi -- was wondering whether you had used ChatGPT/AI to create articles in the past, such as in this case. I know it's from 2 years ago, this isn't meant as an attack or anything, but just wanted to ask since a lot of that text is still present. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Asa Earl Carter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for LLM use, misleading comments, wikilawyering (see ANI discussion). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
didn’t mislead anyone, to the contrary declared my method which again not LLM
I read WP:TWL, and cannot find where I fit as I didn’t misrepresent any policy in the ANI, if I did please let me know which and where
finally, ANI blocks comes after a clear consensus is reached or at least a conclusion. If you go to the ANI or the page been AfD’ed you will find that the jury still out. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this response is further evidence of the issues that led to the block. For example, "didn’t mislead anyone, to the contrary declared my method which again not LLM" is itself misleading. Your understanding of the ANI process is incorrect. I'm not sure what The Wikipedia Library has to do with this; maybe you mixed up your acronyms? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I guess you made up your mind since you are saying my response is an evidence for something that already happened without actually engage with the response. Kinda dismissive. Being an admin doesn’t mean you decide things without explaining yourself (or maybe it does).
there is no policy against using AI for grammar, so a block is a bit of overkill. Also look to the talk or the ANI, and please tell me from all of these comments, did any1 provide a text that fits the LLM definition?
We have an AfD, if that came back as keep, are you going to apologise?
have you looked to the comments at the AfD, or you just decided to block me, when no one asked for that
as for the warring, it takes two to war, I don’t see any even warning to the other side?
but having been here for a while, it’s almost impossible to find someone who is willing to change their mind, and people actually use intimidation to silence you .. so Where can I escalate/challenge this block please?
I will wait for the AfD results to decide if I need to challenge it, as maybe I am wrong
Yes, you are welcome to challenge the block using the instructions in the block template. I'm happy to answer questions, but it's hard to focus on the details when we have such a disconnect on the main issue. You said you use Copilot, an LLM-based AI program, to author text. The denials after that point are the wikilawyering/misleading comments that are at the heart of this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton's apple tree until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
