User talk:Tinterest

I haven'Tinterest

Victoria LaBillois moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Victoria LaBillois. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like a resume. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. MediaKyle (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:John F. Kennedy receiving honorary doctorate from Lord Beaverbrook at University of New Brunswick, 1957.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John F. Kennedy receiving honorary doctorate from Lord Beaverbrook at University of New Brunswick, 1957.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B3251_(talk) 02:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per FfD, the article now provides sourced context, addressing the original NFCC#8 concern.Tinterest (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Sandstein 16:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked. For further information, see section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Contested under G15. Thanks. Tinterest (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 2026

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick. Borgenland (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to appeal, I very strongly recommend that you read WP:GAB first - specifically the WP:LLMAPPEAL section. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The article was written and checked by me. I see now that some sources were inaccessible. I also did not address all questions directly (there were quite a few spread across multiple threads and related discussions). If unblocked, I will check sources before using them, avoid dead links beforehand, and respond to questions clearly and directly. I would very much like to continue contributing to Wikipedia, as I have over the past several years in an exemplary manner. Tinterest (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if your claims of not using LLMs are entirely true, that just makes it worse. The fact that, if we believe those statements, you managed to hallucinate multiple references on multiple articles is not something that can be swept under a rug with a "whoops, I see now, I'll do better" - that's a fundamental and extremely serious problem, that you need to address exactly how it managed to happen before there can be any consideration at all of being unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) Can you please confirm whether you have been using AI, LLM or chatbots to generate your posts & sources?

We need to find out what went wrong and why, then look into how we prevent it from happening again, before an admin will consider unblocking you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not use AI/LLM or any such tools to write the article or gather sources. It was written and checked manually. The checking in this case was not as thorough as expected. I did reuse some of my own previous replies while responding to multiple questions across different threads over a short period of time, which may have made the discussion appear repetitive. That was not intended to simulate automated generation though. I understand how this could be misinterpreted, and will ensure in future that responses are clear and separate rather than generic when addressing multiple discussions simultaneously. Tinterest (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? The references were dead on arrival i.e. hallucinated, the reason the article was G15ed. Rand Freeman (talk | stalk) 01:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinterest If you did use AI, you will have a higher chance of being unblocked (because administrators want honesty) if you confess to doing so, apologise and promise (sincerely and in your own words) not to do it again, than if you keep lying about it. Rand Freeman (talk | stalk) 02:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've spent the time since my last post looking through their contributions and it looks like Tintrest may just write in the same manner as an LLM - their Talk page posts have been consistent.

What's also been consistent is a tendency to battleground/bludgeon discussions that aren't going their way - see this failed FA nomination from 2024 [1] and this discussion from 2025: [2] Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This reply also feels a little AI-generated - it's following the standard format that LLM's use.

The sentence "this was not intended to simulate automated generation" is unusual for a person to write - are you using them right now, perhaps a machine translation tool? Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that I'm finding further problems in Draft:Victoria LaBillois. The second source doesn't say she's president of Wejuseg Construction Inc., whilst source 4 supports the 2019 but not the 2020 date. Thankfully the others match the claims and are functional. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To confirm: no, I did not use AI, LLMs, chatbots, or similar tools. The article and sources were prepared and checked manually. The repetition in discussion responses has already been explained above and resulted from replying across multiple threads in a short period of time and reusing parts of my own responses for clarity and speed. I have nothing further to add on this point. Thank you. Tinterest (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are you sure about that?~~

As has already been discussed many times in the AfD discussion, on ANI and now here, your talk page messages and your article have had problems that are extremely unlikely to come, in this pattern, from an unassisted human editor. At the very least you are using AI to fabricate references< and rewrite your talk page messages, which would still be unacceptable. You are not doing yourself any favours here. Rand Freeman (talk | stalk) 04:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I understand that the main concern is how incorrect or unsupported references ended up in the few articles I created. The issue arose from how I compiled and added sources. I often worked with multiple browser tabs open alongside draft text, and in several cases I added references before fully verifying that what was claimed was explicitly supported by the source. In some instances, I relied on partial previews or assumed relevance based on context, and did not go back to confirm each citation line by line before posting. This resulted in references that were either inaccessible at the time or did not fully support the statements they were attached to.

I recognize that this is a serious problem and not just a minor oversight, even if I only created a few articles. To prevent this, I will change my workflow as follows: (1) only add a source after opening and reading it, (2) verify each statement directly against the source before using it, (3) avoid adding multiple references in batches without checking each one first, (4) respond to sourcing questions before expanding an article, and (5) always use drafts in the Draft space first to seek input from other editors before publishing.

I understand the concern about repeatability and am committed to ensuring that all future edits are verified by following these steps. I would appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate this. I enjoy editing Wikipedia and believe that, over the past several years, I have made useful contributions. If requested, I am also willing to refrain from creating new articles. Tinterest (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request appears to have been written by a chatbot using a large language model. The purpose of unblock requests is to determine whether you, the human operating this account, understand why you were blocked – not to test a chatbot's ability to tell us what we want to hear. A message written (or rewritten) by a chatbot can also cause you to sound like you're making empty promises. It is better to write the unblock request yourself. Please read through the guide to appealing blocks for more help. – robertsky (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) I see you've made another appeal but did not address a major problem in your case. Bludgeoning, replying to every user you disagree with with similar arguments in a discussion, was a disruptive behaviour of yours that was one of the reasons you were blocked. Can you explain why your behaviours constituted bludgeoning, why bludgeoning is rude/unnecessary and how you will act differently to avoid bludgeoning future discussions if you are unblocked? Rand Freeman (talk | stalk) 20:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I understand that my writing may come across as formal since I tend to prepare my posts carefully, and that I can sound repetitive when responding to many comments at once, as I sometimes reuse parts of my earlier replies so I do not miss anything. I see now that this can look like repetition or bludgeoning and can make discussions harder for others.

I recognize that I was not as careful with the few articles I created. I had difficulty maintaining the same level of attention across longer texts, and did not always verify sources as thoroughly as I should have before adding them. That is why I offered above to either avoid creating articles altogether or to always start them as drafts.

If unblocked, I will focus on main points rather than replying to every comment individually, keep my responses more concise, avoid repeating points across discussions, and make sure any content I add is fully checked before posting. Thank you for your patience. Tinterest (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

AI aside, the disruption at the AfD, DRV was significant. The commitment not to bludgeon is one good step as is the attention to sourcing, but I do not think we're at the point where an unblock would be a good use of community time at least not without significant guardrails including partial blocks. Tinterest, please do not continue to rush into unblock requests. That is not going to help at this stage. Star Mississippi 02:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) Please stop using AI/LLM's to write your appeal for you, we get these all the time and can see them a mile away. I wasn't sure about your earlier posts but this is the same appeal that I've seen from dozens of other editors who used AI to write for them. If you carry on submitting inadequate appeals, your access to this Talk page may be revoked by an admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Striking, see my comments in the next section. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Note on the above witchhunt

I have submitted a formal appeal to the Wikimedia Arbitration Committee regarding the above bizarrely disproportionate block. Tinterest (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a witch hunt, bro. It’s you using AI/LLM to talk to others and bludgeon conversations, and then constantly denying doing so. Your appeal is very likely to be denied, and your talk page locked. Good luck. ~2026-23948-71 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also don’t see where you’ve done what you claim to have done. ~2026-23948-71 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because they can't edit any page but their own talk page they probably emailed ArbCom (assuming it's not an empty threat). Rand Freeman (talk | stalk) 18:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, I don't like Tinterest's conduct either, but gravedancing is just a jerk-y thing to do. I mean, they're not getting unblocked without a change of approach (and certainly not by ArbCom), but there's no need to kick someone when they're down. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least assuming Tinterest is not using ChatGPT for almost every single edit that they make (which I highly doubt), if Tinterest is granted an unblock I would rather suggest a TBAN on making edits related to the University of New Brunswick for the reasons that I have previously presented here (along with the whole situation there itself). Maybe it would suffice rather than a full on block? Who knows. B3251_(talk) 00:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about things for a day, even though I'm not an admin I'm going to AGF on the whole AI/LLM thing as their writing style has been consistent throughout.

I think the comment that most closely matches my current thoughts is this one.

In the interests of fairness I'm going to strike my later comment about AI-use. I want to be clear that I still believe that the format is very reminiscent of AI, however - the "I understand the concern/I recognize that/if requested" format is very frequently seen in AI-generated appeals (as in, pretty much all of them). Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has received an email about this block. We have referred Tinterest back to the normal unblocks process. However, I would personally like to note (with the consent of my fellow arbs) that the email we were sent does not at all appear to have been AI-generated. I would recommend AGF here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - I believed the appeal was AI-generated at one point, but I'm not at all sure of that anymore and therefore struck my comments.

I don't think we should consider this as an AI-generated appeal and should take them at their word. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

NOTE: This appeal has been posted verbatim as recommended by a UTRS administrator: 'As you still have access to your talk page and there is no private information associated with your appeal, please post your unblock request to your user talk page for administrator review'. So here it is: Hi, I find myself in an impossible situation: based on an inaccessible reference link in one article (one of only two I have ever created in almost three years and 500 edits on Wikipedia), I have been blocked indefinitely as a first offense, and accused of using AI to write. The unblocking process has become a logical trap: I am told to confess to using AI, and if I decline, my denial itself 'sounds like AI' without any evidence. I am constantly being pressured to write differently to 'prove I am human' but this is an unfalsifiable standard: whatever I write becomes evidence against me; like a medieval inquisition: guilty if you confess, guilty if you deny. I also explained other accusations but to no avail - style is the culprit that can (not) be proven. My writing is formal because that is how I write. Countless editors write in this style called the proper written English we learned in school. As a non-native speaker, I have no command of English colloquialisms, nor should I be expected let alone demanded to perform them on demand (ironically, the only way I could convincingly use jargon would be to ask - well, the AI!). I have written this way consistently for 3 years, long before AI tools became widely accessible or widely discussed on Wikipedia. I will not suddenly adopt a different style just to give a fake performance of humanity for skeptics. The relevant discussions can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_F._Kennedy_at_the_University_of_New_Brunswick and my User Talk page. No one had a problem with my style for years, until I wrote the article on an event in which Canada's oldest English-language university UNB awarded JFK (and later on his brother RFK too) a Doctor of Laws, which is the only Canadian university to have awarded the degree on them and their first foreign degree. Still, they insist it is an insignificant event even though at least one book has been written about it by a Wikipedia-notable scholar and the JFK Presidential Library contains it. Previously, they speedy-deleted the non-free image of the event after another "wild" discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2026_April_14. This pattern of targeting that feels like a witchhunt suggests the block is motivated by content disagreement or even politics, rather than genuine conduct concerns. Since my latest appeal and then via email to the Arbitration Committee, a significant development has occurred: the editor Blue Sonnet who led the AI accusations against me has publicly struck her own comments on my Talk page, acknowledging she could not substantiate the claim. Another editor has also suggested in a comment on my Talk page that an indefinite block was inappropriate. These retreats, occurring within 24 hours of my latest appeal, reveal that the case against me is not solid. Since my previous UTRS appeal #112348 was declined due to an open Talk appeal, I am resubmitting now that the Talk appeal has been closed. Note also that the stated grounds for the block have shifted repeatedly: AI use, writing style, bludgeoning, sourcing... — with no consistent basis. This moving of goalposts has made it impossible to address the concern, as each appeal is declined on different grounds. Significantly, since my first UTRS submission, an ArbCom member (asilvering) has publicly stated on my talk page (with the consent of his/her fellow arbs) that my email 'does not at all appear to have been AI-generated' and recommended AGF. Blue Sonnet, again, has also fully retracted her comments. The AI accusation, which was the foundation of this block, has now been effectively dismissed by ArbCom itself. I request a review of the proportionality of this block and the conduct of the editors and, if appropriate for me to ask, administrators involved in this process who did not retreat their position yet. Respectfully, Tinterest Oh, and full disclosure: this appeal was written by AI (just kidding). Tinterest (talk) 12:43 am, 24 April 2026, Friday (26 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Having reviewed this appeal and the discussion below, I don't see a compelling reason to unblock at this time. The self-interested misreading of ARBCOM communications does not inspire confidence that WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct will not immediately resume if unblocked. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's not uncommon for appeals to be declined on different grounds, as each reviewer will see the situation differently and may be looking for different things. This isn't a deliberate, malicious moving of the goalposts.

I like the suggestion above of a topic ban from editing related to the University of New Brunswick; would you be okay with that? 331dot (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, UNB is the whole point here: a UNB topic ban would also validate the deletion of the JFK-at-UNB article/photo that triggered this entire process, conceding that the content dispute which motivated this block was legitimate. I stick to my request for an unconditional unblock, in line with the AGF recommendation by the entire ArbCom, noting that any future conduct issues can be addressed through normal processes if and when they arise. Tinterest (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will not close your request at this time, but I don't wish to unblock you without a topic ban. Perhaps a different admin will give you a better deal. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer; however, accepting any topic ban as a condition of unblocking would itself constitute a sanction, and one again imposed without the due process that was absent from the original block. The indefinite block was already the very first sanction, making a topic ban a second sanction on top of an already disproportionate first one (I prefer a clean record, in virtual as in real life because you never know when earlier sanctions might be used against you in the future!). I stick to my unconditional unblock request, as recommended unanimously by ArbCom.Tinterest (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed it, but I don't see where ArbCom has "recommended" any action on this matter; they could have unblocked you themselves if they wished. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it's certainly your prerogative but I think you're overstating the importance/effect of what you term sanctions. The community is willing to forgive and forget past sanctions if the issue is clearly no longer applicable. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify that ARBCOM consented for @Asilvering to disclose that one specific email you sent to them didn't appear to be AI-generated - it's not at all accurate to say that ARBCOM unanimously agreed that you should be unblocked unconditionally, unless you've been contacted separately by them? Blue-Sonnet 20:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, @Blue-Sonnet. I believe that the email we were sent was not likely to be AI-generated, but arbcom has made no determinations about the block or the unblock. -- asilvering (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AGF was recommended explicitly by at least ArbCom admin asilvering, and the entire ArbCom unanimously deemed my appeal there genuinely mine - thereby addressing the core objection to AGF while adopting the procedural framework that conditioned the choice between the ban and AGF solely on the authenticity of my writing. Consequently, ArbCom implicitly recommended AGF; both the necessary and sufficient conditions for this logic seem satisfied. Tinterest (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. As I said in this post, the committee declined to hear your appeal, and referred it back to the normal process. The committee agreed that I could speak to your email on this talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tinterest, I urge you to reconsider a topic ban from the University of New Brunswick. It appears you have misinterpreted the ArbCom message as their blessing for an unblock, when it was in fact at least some of them just saying it didn't appear that the particular email they received was LLM-written. Even if an admin assumes good faith about your whether you've been making contributions with LLMs or at least Grammarly's LLM-based corrections, you were extremely combative before the block and that has continued during the block.

I'd be surprised if there was any real appetite to see you jumping right into the same dispute. You say that accepting a topic ban would justify the block, but the opposite is true. The block is not going to be expunged and the best way to lessen the importance of that block in your history is being unblocked and building up a long track record of good contributions and productive, respectful disagreements with your colleagues on this project. It's staying blocked for a long time because you can't drop the stick and move on from an unpleasant dispute that will make the block seem more justified by your actions. If 331dot is still willing to consider unblocking you with what is an extremely narrow topic ban, I think you would be making a grave mistake by dismissing the idea. Whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this and reiterating that my position was this post - I didn't think LLM's were involved but I did see a definite tendency towards combative behaviour over the years when it came to subjects that Tinterest feels strongly about. I've consistently pointed to that specific post as my current feelings on the subject. I spent over two hours looking through Tinterest's contribution history to make sure I was being as fair as possible & get a true picture of their contribution history (I'll also note it was 3am by the time I was done, I felt it was that important for me to be thorough in this case).

Yes, I've struck my comments about LLM use, I have not struck my comments about long-term behaviour.

I presume that the topic ban would be in respect to overall behaviour, not LLM use. Blue-Sonnet 02:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My request for an unconditional unblock stands, regardless of what ArbCom did or did not recommend (as that is not the main point). The reason is simple (and this is the core of the issue, not any vote count of yeahsayers v. naysayers or explicit/implicit support): accepting a UNB topic ban is inseparable from conceding that the block itself was justified - because it was the UNB article and photo that triggered this entire process. A topic ban on UNB is not a compromise; it is the punishment the blocking admins sought from the start, delivered through the back door. Fighting uncompromisingly when you know you've done nothing wrong and there is no evidence to the contrary of AGF can by no means be equated to combativeness. I am also touched that some editors stayed up until 3am reviewing my contributions to help reach a fair conclusion. Next time I advise they try AI. Tinterest (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's your prerogative, of course. But if you're waiting around for someone to make some kind of official declaration that the block was unjustified, this is probably the end of the road. Again, all the best in whatever's next, whether or not it involves Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This will also be my last post on this thread, I genuinely did stay up past three am trying to be fair - that's exactly why I struck my AI comments.

That last sentence took the last of my goodwill with it, I'm afraid.

I was just hoping for some acknowledgement of what I'd found and a commitment to do better. If I was wrong, then an explanation of what exactly I had misunderstood so I could see where I'd misjudged the situation and allow me to reconsider my findings.

I may well have supported the appeal depending on the response (I tend to be very generous with AGF - to a fault sometimes), but sadly I won't discover whether that would have been the case.

I nevertheless wish you the best. Blue-Sonnet 17:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption. In this case, a topic ban would prevent you from contributing to the topic area that was the source of your disruption but allow you to edit anywhere else, building up a good edit history and track record of collaboration/other good behavior that you can then use in the future as evidence to ask that the topic ban be removed. Topic bans are not permanent. If you're on the hill you want to die on- that's your choice. You're welcome to continue to wait to see if someone else will give you a better deal, though this request will not remain open indefinitely. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The sole stated reason for this decline is an alleged misreading of ArbCom communications - not the disproportionality of an indefinite block as a first offense, not the complete retraction of the AI accusation by its lead proponent, not the repeated moving of the goalposts across multiple declines, not the ArbCom member's personal AGF recommendation, not the UTRS admin's suggestion the appeal should be posted publicly here verbatim. One procedural quibble outweighs all of that? I respectfully suggest that a reviewing admin who ignores the substance entirely while hanging a decline on a single semantic point is themselves demonstrating exactly the kind of selective reasoning this appeal has documented throughout in the behaviour of users and admins alike. Given that this new decline adds nothing substantive to the discussion, my request for an unconditional unblock stands. (PS. I was going to end on a funny note like the human I am by saying 'AI out'. But my AI lover loves me too mutch to allow me such a risky repeat of the same maneuver. Something about not wanting me to be misread again, and by a 26343554-languages-speaking polyglot admin at that. Oh well. Human out, at least.) Tinterest (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An unconditional unblock is not on the table, and this request continues the litigation above. Tinterest, please show a productive history editing elsewhere before you request another unblock. WP:SO is helpful. Star Mississippi 18:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Thanks for your proposals but per WP:BANAUTH, administrators may impose unblock conditions only with the agreement of the blocked user. I do not recall agreeing to any conditions on this Talk page. And when the blocked user has never agreed to any conditions, they "may post another block appeal" - which is this appeal. Furthermore, per WP:BLOCK, blocks must be justified using evidence visible on Wikipedia, but no such evidence has survived scrutiny in this case, as the record above demonstrates conclusively. Therefore, neither banning nor blocking has any basis. Consequently, an unconditional unblock is not only on the table - it is the only outcome consistent with Wikipedia's policies. The request stands. Data out, Captain. Tinterest (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Removing talk page access. This has become a timesink. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tinterest, you do realize that the administrators who will decide whether to unblock you know that you're (again) willfully misquoting the policies you're linking. Please spend the next six months showing you can edit in a collaborative environment. Star Mississippi 03:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]