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

==== !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)