Editing Eurovision Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section)

== Agnirmurdhadhiva and AI/LLM use ==
{{atop|head=sock|body={{nac}} indeffed as a sock of {{u|Fostera12}} [[User:lp0 on fire|<span style="color:#c56030;background:inherit;">lp0&nbsp;on&nbsp;fire</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:lp0 on fire|<span style="color:#64cea0;background:inherit">()</span>]] 18:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)<br>See? It is never wrong to block an AI user on sight. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]]}}

@[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] has chornicly been using AI to write articles and has no intention of stopping. I've tried to work with them and explain that this is not ok behavior and all they do is lash out at me on my and their talk page. Are my replies me at my best? No, not at all. But the reaction they have to anyone telling them to not use AI is way out of line. The changes in their behavior that are needed are very minor and they could be a useful contributor to the project. They would need to do things such as checking references in their articles, being open and honest about AI use, and not attacking everyone who points out problems, and stop trying to hide warnings on their talk page. [[Wikipedia:Competence is required|Competence is required]] to write articles and if they need to use an AI model to make meaningful contributions due to their English ability that's fine but they need to understand that their behavior and actions are not conducive towards moving the project forward. Reacting the way they have with such pathos and hysteria assumes bad faith and is not something we need here.

* {{Diff|User talk:Dr vulpes|1343489406|1343487509|10:21, March 14, 2026}}
* {{Diff|User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|1343590635|1343493325|23:31, March 14, 2026}}
* {{Diff|User talk:Dr vulpes|1343732264|1343723305|18:51, March 15, 2026}}
* {{Diff|User talk:Dr vulpes|1343733939|1343732264|19:02, March 15, 2026}}


[[Tree of Fire: A Story of Love and Resilience]]

Since this editor and I have had a long back and forth this week I tagged this article for G15 speedy deletion and another admin deleted it. They then recreated the article as a copy and paste move. Then they tried to remove the CSD template afterwards, in the edit summaries in the deleted article and the article talk page they admit to cleaning up output from an LLM. 

* {{Diff|Tree of Fire: A Story of Love and Resilience|1343748803|1343748097|Pipe058 restoring the CSD template}}
* [[User talk:Pipe058#that page was already deleted by an admin|Admitting to having LLM text in the article and trying to remove it.]]
* {{Plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=178546186|name=G15 Deletion by Rsjaffe}}
* [[Talk:Tree of Fire: A Story of Love and Resilience]]


[[Safia/Safdar]]

While this article was undergoing AfC it was declined multiple times for AI use. Later the article was tagged for AI use. Each time Agnirmurdhadhiva blew the issues off and deleted them from their talk page.

* {{Diff|Safia/Safdar|1343313644|1343302769|AfC declined due to AI}}
* {{Diff|Safia/Safdar|1343444130|1343313644|Moves article out of draft anyway}}
* {{Plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAgnirmurdhadhiva&diff=1343444972&oldid=1343313651|name=Talk page deletion of AI/LLM warnings 03:21, March 14, 2026 }}
* {{Diff|Safia/Safdar|1343489977|1343487020|Removed AI template}}
* {{Plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAgnirmurdhadhiva&diff=1343590656&oldid=1343493325|name=Talk page deletion of AI/LLM warnings 23:32, March 14, 2026}}
* {{Plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAgnirmurdhadhiva&diff=1343748297&oldid=1343746308|name=Talk page deletion of AI/LLM warnings 20:49, March 15, 2026}}

'''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 00:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

:Also I've posted their work to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard|AI cleanup noticeboard]]. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard#S. Saraswathi and Safia/Safdar|Wikipedia:WikiProject_AI_Cleanup/Noticeboard#S._Saraswathi_and_Safia/Safdar]] '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 00:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::I went ahead and cleaned up [[Tree of Fire: A Story of Love and Resilience]], and removed the G15 tag. In spite of Agnirmurdhadhiva cleanup attemps, there were still some obvious AI remnants. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 02:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you for understanding and doing what is actually required. This kind of encouragemnt will definetely allow users to feel free in contibuting transparently. [[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]] only aimed at threatening me and overwhelming me instead of doing what is actually required
::::I suggested below to stick to submitting drafts via AFC. You have created a lot of needless work for the community by posting LLM slop directly into mainspace. Your own convenience in using AI tools should not be at the expense of the Wikipedia community, whose time is collectively far more valuable than yours. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 02:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Sure going forward will use draft AFC portal. I sincerely apologize the admins for the inconvinience caused by me [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 02:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::But will you follow the rules is the real question. Last time when you didn't like your article being declined you just went ahead and moved it over anyway. Then you tried to cover your tracks and pretended that it didn't' happen. I know that this feels like people are ganging up on you but we're trying to correct actions that are causing harm. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 03:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I am honestly taking full ownership of my action, and I will follow the rules. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 03:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Please look into [[S. Saraswathi]], and [[Draft:Safia/Safdar]] so that the matter can be resolved once for all and going forward I can contibute full manual texts. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 02:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*Well, here we are again. '''Indef''', no discussion. My response to these situations has evolved to the following:
**If someone owns up immediately to their AI use, and appears to genuinely understand they shouldn't be generating article content or talk-page posts using AI, then an indef from article space should be put in place, which they can appeal after 6 months of useful (and not AI-generated) talk-page contributions.
**If (as is the case here) they lie about it, immediate full indef, period. Appeal in 1 year, if they can do so convincingly at that time.
*:We just cannot be wasting everyone's time, as we have been doing, hoping to salvage unsalvageable editors. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:I request your kind self [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]] to give me only one last opportunity I sincerely apologize for the inconvinience caused. I will ensure to be a salvageable editor open to advise.[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 02:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:@[[User:EEng|EEng]] I think before this interaction I would have strongly disagreed with you. But I think I might be coming around to your way of thinking. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 03:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::I sincerely apologize to everybody for my actions, and take full ownership meaning I am not covering my tracks. I will follow the rules, there is no doubt in that. I am looking for last opportunity so that I can contibute good materal. If the target is to block me by hook or crook I am helpless.[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 03:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::Blocking you from creating articles in mainspace doesn't leave you helpless. You would still be able to edit in mainspace, but not create. Blocking you from ''editing'' in mainspace is more extreme but doesn't leave you helpless either; you can still submit drafts for review and submit edit requests on talk pages. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 03:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::As I said I am taking full ownership for my actions and wont repeat this. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 03:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*I would say '''6 month block from mainspace creations'''. The editor isn't yet ready to be writing articles in mainspace and needs to demonstrate competence via [[WP:AFC]]. The cleanup attempts I have seen so far are ineffective. It is easy to clean up an article that was manually written by someone who is not good with English, but it takes hours to unravel an AI-generated article, which are colossal wastes of the community's time. I recommend Agnirmurdhadhiva use an AI to find and summarize sources only, and '''not''' use an AI as an author. It's like a Supreme Court judge has assistance to do legal research and write briefs, but in the end the judge writes the final opinion. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 02:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:My reactions:
*:*Blocking mainspace ''creations'' only (not blocking mainspace ''editing'') is just asking for trouble. It's clear at this point that this editor cannot, at this time be trusted to edit articles in any way. So (say I) this should be at least a mainspace block, but because he lied about AI use, it should really be a full sitewide block.
*:*Any block should be indef, not time-limited. An essential step will be for him to express (6 months or a year from now) why he's ready to have the block removed -- not have it silently expire and he goes back to doing what he was doing before, and no one the wiser until more damage has been done.
::So in summary: full indef for lying about AI use. He can appeal in a year. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I never lied about AI, I thought that was not serious due to human in loop guard rails. If you have already decided to block without looking overall facts, why are u allowing the discussion thread to stretch, this is strange. Once again I apologize pls provide some relief. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 05:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::There are literally diffs above that are you saying you did not use AI at all. That is clearly a lie. Is this what you mean by taking full responsibility? [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 07:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I take full responsibility for using AI majorly to generate infobox, reflinks, and partial text. But the original references where manually curated by me. AI fails to generate appropriate references. (This is extremely important point). Do we have any software avl which seggregates which part was generated by AI and which part is not? Infobox is listings, reflinks is also listings. There is no scope to vandalize the infobox. Because a movie cast will not change, and crew will not change. So I thought here editor is the human-in-loop guard rail. Ultimately the idea is the article should present facts, and not falsified info. Where in the article of Tree of Fire, Safia/Safdar, and S. Saraswathi there is falsification of information and non notability, and lack of secondary sources. It may appear over the top but '''I am an AI GxP validation professional dealing with extremely regulated patient data in clinical trials''' with a Phd in Biochemistry. In short, '''I ensure data integrity. Now I understand LLMs are out of scope in wikipedia, even if editor ensures data integrity'''.[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 10:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I have to challenge your statement above that {{tq|I never lied about AI}} - you explicitly stated that {{tq|all my contributions are not AI.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr_vulpes&diff=1343733939&oldid=1343732264]. 
::::::Good for you that you've got qualifications but we only care about your '''actions''' here at Wikipedia; qualifications don't mean that you're able to edit Wikipedia competently or aren't able to disrupt the project. There are plenty of editors with Phd's, Masters etc. so your qualifications don't make you any better or more capable at editing Wikipedia than other editors. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 10:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I used that statement as the other user was attacking me without allowing me to explain. I am taking full responsibility period, and ur saying I am lying. mentioned about qualification to set the context, I made some valid points looks like u did not check last line. That is very imp point to be included in wikipedia policies. I know anybody is welcome to edit wikipedia. But what is the barometer for trusting an editor? I have sent the context why I used AI in first place, and detailed on why I will not use it in future to edit wikipedia. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 10:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::The following URLs are not non sensical URLs and are not generated using LLM. I have already started reworking on the entire article [[Tree of Fire: A Story of Love and Resilience]] manually removing all AI generated text. You can compare this with old version with the recently updated version by me, there is a significant change. Pls check the contested deletion page. Another aspect is I have already submitted 2 articles in draft space which were already accepted by admins. [[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]] is deliberately and falsely accusing me in his chats, and has been sending exhaustive and elaborative abusive emails. I have clearly mentioned to [[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]] that I will change all articles to manual text pls just be patient, assume good faith, and stop mailing me the same thing again and again. I am here to change my editing styles and contribute. I request the admins to give me another chance to correct the LLM text if any. I sincerely apologize if I have caused any damage and looking forward to work collaboratively. I will be creating next article, and you check assuming good faith if I have used LLM and then you can initiate block. I dont see any reason to lie. I am coming clean and accepting I have used LLM to save time largely to generate infobox template and reflinks template, and main text like background information of the film. Going forward I will manually edit everything in draft space and will not use LLM. However, I request only admins to review my articles and not [[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]. I find him to be using all wikipedia jargon instead of communicating the issue clearly, and personally attacking me over linguistic background, and culture. I request your kind self [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]] to personally review the last edited version of the article [[Tree of Fire: A Story of Love and Resilience]].
::*https://www.ojaivalleynews.com/news/2018-the-year-in-review----february/article_e9153f27-f444-57e2-ab80-85aab801fb86.html
::*https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/2018/02/18/babas-tree-burned-thomas-fire-fights-survival-ojai/339414002/
::*https://www.rainierintfilmfest.com/
::*https://diversityfilm.org/awards-s13.php
::*https://rfiff.com/Selected/RFIFF_Fall_2025_Official_Selections.html
::[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 01:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::I request your [[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] kindself to give another last chance. The english language use is due to LLMs. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 02:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] you do realize that I've asked for the most minor of things here. I've asked that you get trained on the rules and agree to be open about your AI use, that's it. I'm an admin, I could have just deleted the articles in question when they were in violation of the rules but I didn't, since we have had issues over this AI content I tagged it and let another admin handle it. I've done everything I can to be fair with you, I even have highlighted that you have a lot to offer but only if you follow the rules. Others are talking about blocking you from editing articles at all. And again your lack of honesty and acceptance of your actions proves that maybe I was wrong and a block from mainspace might be the best path forward so you can learn the rules in AfC and we can review your progress in 6-12 months. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 03:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I understand, I apologize to you, I am honestly taking full ownership of my actions, but I request one last opportunity from admin, based on the over all discussions here. 6 months is a very long time, I have lot of material to contibute. You can check my request for edit in [[Mahatma Gandhi]] article. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 03:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Honestly this is out of my hands since we've only clashed over this issue. It's not normal for me to lose my cool like I did with you on my talk page so I can't be a super objective voice here. I leave that to others to resolve this issue. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 04:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::ok [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 05:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::OK, question, can you elaborate on {{tq|exhaustive and elaborative abusive emails}}? Do you mean the talk page posts? It would be very unusual and concerning for an admin to send "abusive emails" to a user so this seems like a very strange accusation to make. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 13:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] since this is a pretty serious accusation for the record I have never sent @[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] an email and have only communicated with them here and on talk pages. I think I've sent maybe 4 or 5 emails ever on Wikipedia and they have had nothing to do with this current discussion. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 18:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's what I figured, yeah. Giving the benefit of the doubt that this is a language-barrier issue. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 20:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::For sure, we all know how serious this kind of stuff is so it's better to just confront it quickly to prevent something from snowballing. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 21:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::{{u|Agnirmurdhadhiva}}, if you are receiving emails through Wikipedia that are abusive, or violate our policies and guidelines, you should forward them to the [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org so that appropriate action can be taken. However, you might just be receiving emails informing you that you were pinged in a discussion. You can change when you receive emails from notifications in [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo]]. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]] [[Special:Contributions/45dogs|(contributions)]]</small> 19:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:I have re-draftified it. Apparently two versions were merged (draft and mainspace) and merge works only in one direction. It wasn't yet ready for mainspace and had already been declined twice by reviewers. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 02:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::Okay, if I am given one last opportunity I can freshly work on the article, with new updated sources, and completely manual text. I request the [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]] admins to give me one last opportunity. I sincerely apologize my previous actions.[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 03:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

=== Proposal 1: 6 month ban from creating articles directly in main space ===
'''Proposer''': Anachronist

'''Statement''': The editor isn't yet ready to be writing articles in mainspace and needs to demonstrate competence via [[WP:AFC]]. The cleanup attempts I have seen so far are ineffective. It is easy to clean up an article that was manually written by someone who is not good with English, but it takes hours to unravel an AI-generated article, which are colossal wastes of the community's time. I recommend Agnirmurdhadhiva use an AI to find and summarize sources only, and '''not''' use an AI as an author. It's like a Supreme Court judge has assistance to do legal research and write briefs, but in the end the judge writes the final opinion.

==== !votes ====
:'''Support''', seems reasonable to prevent their disruption in that area, and AfC is a good way to demonstrate competence in creating new articles without disrupting mainspace. I'm not sure if this is enforceable on a technical level with a block (as originally proposed), but can be a "ban" / a community sanction, hereinafter any main space creations can be [[WP:G5]]'ed if made. As this is where the disruption occurred, it seems like a good path forward, enabling the editor to show their competence in other areas (which they seem to be trying to do now, and should at least be given a chance to after promising to fix their behaviour). <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 06:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::I actually dont need LLM support, because LLM did not map the sources. I did in Tree of Fire, and I can do the same in other articles, I am personally not associated with Tree of fire, but after watching the documentary it triggered my interest. I thought there are human in loop guard rails in wikipedia, for example i used AI for infobox and refilling of bare URLs to save time, that is the reason i used article draft not direct publishing, that is the key, text also can be written without LLM it is not rocket science. It is just that in wikipedia trust is luxury. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 06:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

* I'd like to propose an '''alternate''' to this proposal: '''indef on mainspace editing, and all drafts must go through AfC'''. This gives Agnirmurdhadhiva the opportunity to demonstrate competence by making edit requests for mainspace articles, as well as ensuring drafts are suitable. They clearly need to be restricted in some way; this lets them contribute while protecting Wikipedia from AI nonsense. Once it's clear their contributions are up to standard, they can request removal of the restrictions. [[User:Meadowlark|Meadowlark]] ([[User talk:Meadowlark|talk]]) 06:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:To keep things organised / clear, I'll make a new Proposal 3 for a main space p-block. It sounds like you would then support Proposal 1 & Proposal 3 (applied together)? <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 06:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Thanks for arranging these proposals, it's making it a lot easier. I was suggesting a variant of Prop 1 (indef vs 6 month) + an extra restriction, so I've edited Prop 3 a little to hopefully clarify the idea. [[User:Meadowlark|Meadowlark]] ([[User talk:Meadowlark|talk]]) 06:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for clarifying it, that makes sense now! I support that, too. <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 06:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::That proposal 3 is redundant with proposal 2, which says "indef from article space should be put in place, which they can appeal in 6 months". ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 06:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::No, proposal 2, if I read EEng's words right, argues for a {{tq|1=immediate full indef}}, covering all namespaces, which is different from a main space p-block. <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 06:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::Did you read the first bullet point in proposal 2? ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 06:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::EEng is alleging that Agnirmurdhadhiva has lied about their AI use, and thus the second bullet point of their statement applies (in the second bullet point they say "as is the case here"). They just give the first one to show their general response. Agnirmurdhadhiva, did not, "own up immediately to their AI use" as the first bullet point describes. <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 07:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''', but only as a third choice between an indef and a ban from article space. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 07:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Here's just an example of why this is insufficient. After this long discussion about them following the rules, Agnirmurdhadhiva added unsourced information indicating that a character in a TV series was based on Vipparthi Adimurthy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V._Adimurthy&diff=prev&oldid=1344088672]. Then added a reference to Adimurthy's article linking him to the TV series. After the latter edit was reverted, Agnirmurdhadhiva again placed the reference in Adimurthy's article, again unsourced [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V._Adimurthy&diff=prev&oldid=1344091493], and then removed the note an editor left on their talk page about adding unsourced material without any reply.
*:(While the edit itself is at least plausible, I can't find anything -- in English at -- least that sources that, or a single reference that connects Adimurthy to the cast member of the TV show. Even ignoring [[WP:OR]], Adimurthy's own article references his work with Chandrayaan-1, a mission that ended in 2009, while the TV show is about later similar missions from 2019 to 2023.) [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 07:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*::I'm concerned about the sourcing at [[Meher Mount Sanctuary]] as I've just removed two references, one was a circular Wikipedia reference. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meher_Mount_Sanctuary&diff=1344098798&oldid=1344095469]. 
*::For the second, note how both the Wikipedia article and this website [https://www.meherbabatravels.com/his-close-ones/women/agnes-baron/] have identical wording (complete with typo): ''"The Witch of Sulpfur Mountain " by Elena Jervis, Ventura County Sunday Star 12 September 1999''. 
*::It's also mentioned in the Arabic Wikipedia [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D9%84_%D9%85%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%B1]; most of the citations are almost identical so the other possibility is that this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meher_Mount_Sanctuary&oldid=1344090856] was a partial (unattributed?) translation. 
*::Either way, I have some doubts that the original source for this reference was checked before being added - since I've not been able to find this one online I've removed it. If anyone can find the original source to verify the citation, please feel free to add it back. Some of the other sources look a little weak too, including blogs,  [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]] and others read as rather promotional. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 09:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''+1''' as third choice. A critical feature is that the block be lifted only on an explicit appeal which the community can judge on its merits -- no just the passage of time. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 10:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Just for my understanding, hope u went through my last recent response. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 10:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this is the least punitive option, I would have preferred something more productive like a couple weeks off of mainspace and working in AfC for awhile. But they don't really show any intent to stop, only after people started talking about months of sanctions did they change their tone. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 14:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Not great behavior in here, obviously, and the articles certainly have issues commensurate with AI text, but they do appear to have stopped bludgeoning like they said they would, which is a positive step. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 15:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

=== Proposal 2: Site-wide INDEF followed by probationary article-space INDEF ===
'''Proposer:''' EEng

'''Statement:''' Well, here we are again. '''Indef''', no discussion. My response to these situations has evolved to the following:
*(a) If someone owns up immediately to their AI use, and appears to genuinely understand they shouldn't be generating article content or talk-page posts using AI, then an indef ''from article space'' with AfC required for drafts should be put in place, which they can appeal after a minimum of 6 months of useful (and not AI-generated) talk-page contributions or draft creations.
*(b) If (as is the case here) they lie about it, immediate full indef, period. Appeal in 1 year, if they can do so convincingly at that time. A successful appeal must include a demonstration that the genuinely understand they shouldn't be generating article content or talk-page posts using AI, and will result in a conversion of the block to an indef from article space, with AfC required for drafts, which they can appeal after a minimum of 6 months of useful (and not AI-generated) talk-page contributions or draft creations.
*(c) If during the 6-month probation they even once use AI to generate article content or talk-page posts, then it's back to indef, period, voted off the island, end of story.
We just cannot be wasting everyone's time, as we have been doing, hoping to salvage unsalvageable editors. [[Carthage must be destroyed|AI must be destroyed]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]]
:::::<small>Stop harrasing me take your decision asap. You already took ur decision then why are you wasting everyones time. You are not even addressing me here. Do what you feel is right why are u depending on others opinions? you anyways not reading my views I took responsibility, I mentioned why i used AI in the first place and I also mentioned why I will not use AI, and even if I used AI any editor can check using LLM checker? What else u need provoke me so that I react and u can ban me? [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)</small>
::::::<small>Where exactly would you like us to address you? You've posted here an incredible <del>70</del> <del>72</del> <del>73</del> <del>74</del> <del>75</del> <del>76</del> <del>77</del> <del>78</del> <del>79</del> <del>80</del> 81 times in just <del>10</del> 11 hours. You're making things worse. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 11:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)</small>
:::::::1. With due respect as an admin, I feel that you are not running the opinion portal in neutral way.
:::::::2. All opinionators are just harrasing me by mentioning their same point again and again and again.
:::::::3. How many opinions one reviewer posts 10 Supports for one user? Is there any limit?
:::::::4. They are predicting my future behavior? I have not even edited wikipedia article. Check my manual edits in [[Khajaguda]] and edit request in [[Mahatma Gandhi]] talk page. Check whether they are AI or not. And these edits I made before this appeal was initiated. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::What do you mean by #1? 🚂[[User:ThatTrainGuy1945|<span style="color:blue"><b>That</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>Train</b></span><span style="color:blue"><b>Guy</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>1945</b></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ThatTrainGuy1945|Peep peep!]]</sup> 11:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I mean one only one response for one participant be allowed. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::That's... not how ANI works. You can't control anything at this point. Just let the discussion happen and avoid the temptation to reply to everyone. 🚂[[User:ThatTrainGuy1945|<span style="color:blue"><b>That</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>Train</b></span><span style="color:blue"><b>Guy</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>1945</b></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ThatTrainGuy1945|Peep peep!]]</sup> 11:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::What if admin misses out on my view point if one reviewer posts 10 times, My posts are not even visible. Everybody wants to become a hero. Wikipedia AI policy there is no mention of human in loop concept. That is where I was mistaken. And I stopped creating articles after that, and moved on and already start contibuting to other stub articles. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::What are you talking about at this point? Like I said, avoid the temptation to reply to everything. What is the "human in loop" concept? 🚂[[User:ThatTrainGuy1945|<span style="color:blue"><b>That</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>Train</b></span><span style="color:blue"><b>Guy</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>1945</b></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ThatTrainGuy1945|Peep peep!]]</sup> 11:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It is a concept where in after AI tool has generated its output, a human will check for hallucinations, redundancy, misinformation and inactive urls or outdated data. But it is not workable in wikipedia and I have understood that only now, may be most of other users here. It is a check point at  every stage not just the final output.[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

==== !votes ====
*'''Oppose''', it seems they have now realised their mistake & agreed not to do it again (and, in my check of their contributions, have not done problematic editing since making that statement). Sanctions & blocks, particularly and especially INDEFs, should be preventative not punitive, and it doesn't seem like it's needed at the moment. If they go back into AI misuse / DE after agreeing to stop here, I'll be happy to change my !vote. <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 06:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:This is preventative, not punitive. We'd be preventing someone who uses AI and wastes our time by lying about it, from further using AI and further wasting our time by lying about it, lying about it, lying about it, then eventually admitting it but saying there's nothing wrong with it, repeating that over and over, then finally saying Well, I Won't Do It Again, then after a few days going back to doing it again because they actually don't see anything wrong with it and we're just being mean. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 10:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' First choice. I would have supported the ban from article space as the preferred option, but the fact that lying has been involved makes me less inclined to take their profuse eleventh-hour apologies in good faith. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 07:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:If I use AI going forward I will be caught with LLM checker, and blocked. What is there to research here? As a benefit of doubt let admin hold the decision for 24 hrs. I have not made any edits today, and I may not make any edits in the next few days. Once the case is closed, I will focus on other important personal tasks not wikipedia. Because I am feeling harrased in admin notice board. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Nobody has harassed you at all. We're discussing you only because your poor conduct has caused the community to have to figure out the best way to protect this project. To now call this "harassment" is the exact opposite of the full responsibility you claim to take.  I'm even more confident that an indefinite block is necessary than I was before. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 11:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as first choice. We need at [[WP:NOAILIARS]] essay. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 10:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Please go through my appeals also, and understand that if I use AI I will be caught anyways with AI checker. I kindly appeal to u to allow me the opportunity to contribute. You are not even interacting with me and How can u make correct judgement. On top of it you are making me a victim of harrasment since past 4-5 hrs is it a fair process.[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per my amended post below [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Blue-Sonnet-20260317105500-Blue-Sonnet-20260317073500] [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 10:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Why are you refering to statements made by the appealer? You did not read his closing statement? '''Honestly this is out of my hands since we've only clashed over this issue. It's not normal for me to lose my cool like I did with you on my talk page so I can't be a super objective voice here. I leave that to others to resolve this issue'''. Things have changed a lot in the past 4-5 yrs, Why are u again and again harrasing me? when I have already clarified ur doubts? [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Again please give time for editors to respond - this statement has been amended after I initially voted. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 11:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::I'm not going to reply to you any further, I feel you're bludgeoning the discussion and it's not at all helpful. 
*:::I'm losing track of what's happening because you're posting so often and so quickly that I can't keep up. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 11:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::Sure,, I will stop messaging. But You are loosing track because you are not reading my clarifications, just adding support support, and you are only depending on case appeal statements which are less weightage because now I mentioned clearly why i used AI and why I will not use AI. [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', the editor seems very sorry that they used AI, and penance has been achieved as long as the editor never uses it again in the vicinity of Wikipedia or related projects. Many new editors are going to use AI as a matter of habit, and an example has to be made somewhere, but for this one an indef seems extreme. How about give them a week off to ponder why they thought they needed artificial intelligence to retain or simulate intelligence and to then realize that yes, they can write, they can write without the lazytool. EEng, asking for mercy for this one sorry editor, but there should be a clearer policy on AI use and anyone using it should be given a warning, then a short ban, then a much longer ban. Indef is like a box of chocolates, picked apart by dark chocolate and milk chocolate lovers, until nothing remains but the crinkly papers and consumer-friendly container. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Do you honestly think it's helpful to go onto this editor's talk page to all but confirm their belief that an ANI discussion constitutes harassment and to kvetch about EEng? Not to mention the the whole sockpuppeting-is-an-option-though-you-totally-shouldn't-do-that-no-sir-no-how-wink-wink pantomime? [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 11:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::I have to agree, Randy, that I don't think your visit to the user's talk page will have had the intended effect. On the mercy question: I'd be in agreement with you, if it weren't for the lying. Lying about AI should get you indeffed, with a minimum 1 year before appeal; this is a reasonable amount of time for an editor to gain the perspective to understand that lying to the community is not OK. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 11:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is clearly punitive, not preventative and policy on AI and potential sanctions for AI use should not be developed ad-hoc at ANI without wider community input. Complaining about time-wasting while simultaneously wasting time with ever-more punitive proposals is rather ironic. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 11:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Some actions here at ANI are taken from an established playbook, others are developed ad hoc on the spot -- it's what we do here day in and day out. I do hope what I've posted about can be the beginning of what may someday be a community-approved general model for dealing with these situations, but that's a side-effect of what we're doing here now, which is dealing with this one editor. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 11:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose the policy suggestion''': I don't have an opinon on this individual, but no to "indef ban for anyone who admits it and apologizes and promises not to do it again." I dont think you can make that policy here anyway, but i want to be clear i think it would be a bad idea. this is something that could be done by a new or younger editor in good faith, and should be given a chance to correct that. I could see the value of a "preventative block" rule if someone is using AI, block from article editing until they respond and promise to stop, but mandatory six months just seems punitive. (However, I do agree with the overall point that obvious AI use, and espesially lying about it, should just be blocked like vandalism, instead of having a whole thread about it everytime) [[User:Tioseafj|/ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/]] ([[User talk:Tioseafj|talk]]) 12:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:So we're both OK with a block from article space (assuming they haven't been lying), but where we differ is that you want them unblocked as soon as they promise not to do it again, while I say they should have to serve a mandatory probation under that block, during which they demonstrate that they can participate in discussions (and/or make AfC submissions) without relapsing into their AI <del>addiction</del> <ins>habit</ins>. Doing it my way allows them to continue contributing, just in a safe way, whereas doing it your way is just asking for more trouble and wasted time cleaning up. The fact is, it has seldom if ever been observed in nature that an AI addict gets back on the straight and narrow, and while we have hearts of gold and want to offer that chance, AGF is not a suicide pact. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 15:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::that every person who attempts to use AI to edit has an "AI addiction" that they cannot help using it even if they sincerely mean not to, seems like a pretty wild assumption to base policy on. 
:::either way-- i think we both agree quicker blocks with a lower threshhold is clearly needed. imo, quicker response with easier unblocks >> harsher response after a long thread [[User:Tioseafj|/ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/]] ([[User talk:Tioseafj|talk]]) 16:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::If someone tells you they can stop using heroin any time, they're just giving it a try, do you believe them? Of course not. Same principle here. AI gives its users a euphoric feeling of superhuman power which can't be given up without a struggle. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{Citation needed}} [[User:Tioseafj|/ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/]] ([[User talk:Tioseafj|talk]]) 00:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I believe that while AI is sometimes addictive, I disagree that an AI struggle is needed every single time. Sometimes, they do give it up, and while the road may be rocky, they get there eventually. <small>Hopefully, the history of all henceforth existing society will not be the history of AI struggles. </small> 🚂[[User:ThatTrainGuy1945|<span style="color:blue"><b>That</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>Train</b></span><span style="color:blue"><b>Guy</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>1945</b></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ThatTrainGuy1945|Peep peep!]]</sup> 01:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::So we can stop arguing about this, I've changed ''addiction'' to ''habit''. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - Maybe WMF can use some of those donor dollars to develop an AI bot to identify AI articles and automatically indef those introducing AI content into the Wikipedia ecosphere. That's a joke, for the record. If you're told No AI, but introduce the article anyway; and then it gets flagged for AI and the flag is removed — we're done. Crockipedia is thattaway--->    /// [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 06:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
* '''Support indef''' - I have tried to see every statement by Agnirmurdhadhiva in the friendliest, AGFest light, including possible language-barrier aspects. Nonetheless: 1) They lied bluntly about AI use, ''and then lied about lying.''  2) They have exhibited defensiveness to he point of paranoic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. 3) They have bludgeoned this ANI thread, not just as part of their bunker mentality, but also as part of a fusillade of   rhetoric, wikilawyering, and bloviating about their off-wiki qualifications.  And, given the battered bludgeon that they have wielded, this is hysterically funny: {{Tq|...only one response for one participant be allowed}}.  I have lost all confidence in this editor's ability to contribute positively to this project. -<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color=darkgreen">[[User:Hiobazard|'''Hiobazard''']]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Hiobazard|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hiobazard|contribs]]) 08:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

=== Proposal 3: P-block from mainspace; must use AfC for drafts (both indef) ===
'''Proposer:''' Meadowlark

'''Statement:''' Indef on mainspace editing, and all drafts must go through AfC. This gives Agnirmurdhadhiva the opportunity to demonstrate competence by making edit requests for mainspace articles, as well as ensuring drafts are suitable. They clearly need to be restricted in some way; this lets them contribute while protecting Wikipedia from AI nonsense. Once it's clear their contributions are up to standard, they can request removal of the restrictions.

==== !votes ====
*'''Support''', for the same reason(s) as my support on Proposal 1. I don't have a preference between 1 and 3, both seem to fine to me, personally. <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 06:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' though prefer an indef because of the lying. Just using LLMs is bad enough. Us needing to have a Warren Commission-sized investigation in order to get something resembling the truth is an unacceptable situation. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 07:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Love the Warren Commission image. Spot on. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 11:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' <s>with indef second</s> as secondary to indef. I prefer competency-based blocks/bans to timed, so the editor has a chance to demonstrate they've learned from their mistakes and won't cause further damage to the project. Unfortunately, indiscriminate AI-use has caused a lot of damage to Wikipedia and I've lost count of the number of cases where am editor says they won't use AI then shows an inability to work productively without using it. They ask for one last chance, but didn't engage with the community's concerns on multiple other occasions and the diffs presented are concerning - it shouldn't have taken ANI for them to pay attention to the warnings, stop using AI, be honest with us and cease moving drafts inappropriately & surreptitiously. Agnirmurdhadhiva can still contribute through AFC and [[WP:Edit requests|edit requests]], then ask for the training wheels to be removed once they've had enough of these accepted. I appreciate they feel this isn't necessary, however we need to be stricter with this sort of thing because it's becoming harder and harder for the community to deal with. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 07:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::I've changed my vote in view of assertions that they didn't deny AI usage - <s>and borderline [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]]</s> overwhelming the discussion. <s>I also find the flaunting of qualifications distasteful as a reason why they can't be wrong/blocked distasteful, it infers that they should be treated differently to other editors because they have a PhD and work in AI clinical trials.</s> [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 10:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I am not flaunting qualifications my dear, I am setting the context why I used AI in the first place.[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 10:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the clarification. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 11:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Please read what I discussed, dont infer things which I did not say. Please read my responses with neutral point of view [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Please calm down as you don't need to reply to every post (or reply immediately) - if you'd given it a couple of minutes you'd have seen I'd struck that part of my post. You're getting very close to <s>bludgeoning</s> overwhelming the discussion, which I mentioned above. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 11:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::You are provoking me with similar statements, and expecting a reaction out of me. I have clearly explained why I used AI and why dont use AI going forward. Why are you again and again supporting supporting to increase vote count so that indefinetly get blocked? [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not responding any further as per my comment [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Blue-Sonnet-20260317111200-Blue-Sonnet-20260317111000|above.]] 
:::::::I'm sorry that you feel I'm harassing you, but I'm not going to engage any further as I can't keep up. 
:::::::If I'm wrong or being unfair then the votes of other editors will make this clear and outweigh mine. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 11:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' on the condition that if they just continue to use AI by submitting slop to AFC, then their pblock is upgraded to a full indef at any admins discretion. [[User:Nil NZ|<span style="color:#000;font-family:Comic Sans MS;border-radius:20px;background-color:#8ACE00;padding:4px 7px 5px 7px">nil</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Nil NZ|<span style="color:#000">nz</span>]]</sup> 10:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Why would I submit slop to AFC did u read my responses at all? [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Because you lied about using AI previously, and for all I know you're lying when you say you'll ''never ever'' use it again. [[User:Nil NZ|<span style="color:#000;font-family:Comic Sans MS;border-radius:20px;background-color:#8ACE00;padding:4px 7px 5px 7px">nil</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Nil NZ|<span style="color:#000">nz</span>]]</sup> 11:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::I did not lie the appealer agreed that he provoked and harrased me it was just a reaction. Stop harassing me, u have stated ur opinion so pls leave the portal. Thanks [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::If you don't want me answering your question, then don't ask me questions in the first place. That's not "harassment"... [[User:Nil NZ|<span style="color:#000;font-family:Comic Sans MS;border-radius:20px;background-color:#8ACE00;padding:4px 7px 5px 7px">nil</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Nil NZ|<span style="color:#000">nz</span>]]</sup> 11:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::You are predicting my future beahvior it is harrasment only [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::Trying to expel editors from whatever you call this will only convince readers to boot you instead. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 14:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::I did what now? Seriously @[[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]], after all of this you're still trying to blame me for your AI use? Have you learned anything? '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 14:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', give this editor a break (and a week off to enjoy the non-Wikipedia world) but put on an ankle monitor. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:I would have been fine with a slap on the wrist and mentoring/monitoring, that would have been the best possible outcome and what we should strive for. But even now he somehow blames me for him using AI. {{shrug}} '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 14:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''', but if they continue to use AI slop, then indef them. 🚂[[User:ThatTrainGuy1945|<span style="color:blue"><b>That</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>Train</b></span><span style="color:blue"><b>Guy</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>1945</b></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ThatTrainGuy1945|Peep peep!]]</sup> 11:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Are you sure every editor in wikipedia is checked for AI? Is there any automatic AI filter which would not allow editor to publish even in draft space? You are asking me about human in loop so how better u udnerstand AI? [[User:Agnirmurdhadhiva|Agnirmurdhadhiva]] ([[User talk:Agnirmurdhadhiva|talk]]) 11:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''', as long as Agnirmurdhadhiva [[law of holes|stops digging]]. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 15:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for evident lying and competence issues. I'm reluctant to see more slop at AfC, but if AfC patrollers need to haul them back to ANI, we'll have this thread on their record. '''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns|''she/her'']] · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]] · [[m:User:ClaudineChionh|global]])</small> 22:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''I'm OK with this but only as a second choice''' after an initial full indef, per my (a)(b)(c) outline earlier in this thread. This is the action we should take for people who admit their AI use and show a rapid acknowledgement of its inappropriateness. But this isn't one of those editors -- this one lied about their AI use, and that implies that a longer path of rehabilitation is required. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*I just want to highlight that after all the discussion, all the trying to titrate just the right form and duration of block, all the time wasted, this jackass turns out to be a serial sockmaster. I mean it when I say this: the use of AI to generate article content or discussion posts is ''ipso facto'' proof either of incompetence (in the case of someone who can't see why AI use is a losing proposition), or of NOTHERE (in the case of someone who knows AI use is counterproductive, but doesn't care). There is no salvaging such people.
:I am thus completely serious in my (a)(b)(c) outline above of how to deal with AI use, to wit, either ''immediate'' indef from article space (if they instantly own up to using AI, don't argue about it, and sincerely undertake never to do it again), or ''immediate'' full indef (if they prevaricate, perseverate, pettifog, or prestidigitate).
:AI will destroy Wikipedia faster than you can say "melanoma" if we don't cut the cancer out immediately. [[Carthage must be destroyed|We must destroy it first]]. We must be merciless. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
::I agree with you, though I'm skeptical that the community will fully embrace this until far more damage is done. I would say that overall, to continue the analogy, we're still at the stage of dabbling with homeopathic remedies. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)