FailedMusician

MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, FailedMusician. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:PhocusWire, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, FailedMusician. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "PhocusWire".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

FailedMusician, you are definitely not a FailedWikipedian. BootsED (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks FailedMusician (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your userpage is very interesting :) User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since I am not in dispute with you (AFAIK) and have never been, hopefully you will be more receptive to my questions. I'm assuming you've read WP:CLEANSTART so you can ensure you are in-compliance. Can you confirm you are not under any active sanction for any accounts you have used previously? Can you also confirm that you never received any indefinite sanction targeting you as a person with any IPs you've used previously? Can you also confirm that there are no significant expired sanctions you received previously. I'd consider sanctions lasting 1 week or more as significant, whether combined or separate. Finally can you confirm you did not previously edit the Havana Syndrome topic area in any significant way? Even better, it would be great if you can find a trusted admin who's willing to briefly review your previous accounts and confirm there is no problem with your application of cleanstart and then send them a list privately by email. Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

BTW, if you're uncertain why I feel it's important you answer any of these, feel free to ask. Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nil Einne, Thank you for reaching out and for your diligent oversight. I'm fully committed to maintaining transparency and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines, including the principles outlined in WP:CLEANSTART, which I think is irrelevant to me.

1: Active Sanctions: I can confirm that I am not under any active sanction for any accounts I have previously used.

2: Indefinite Sanctions: I also confirm that I have never received any indefinite sanction targeting me as a person or any IPs I have used previously.

3: Expired Sanctions: Additionally, I can confirm there are no significant expired sanctions that I have received.

4: Editing Specific Topic Areas: Regarding the Havana Syndrome topic area, I confirm that I have not edited this topic in any significant way previously.

5: Adherence to Wikipedia’s Principles of Consensus: As a point I would like to add to this discussion, I would like to highlight my commitment to Wikipedia's principle of consensus, as outlined in WP:CONSENSUS. This principle emphasizes the importance of reaching a consensus through polite discussion and rational compromise, which is fundamental to the operation of any Wikipedia project. I ensure my editing and interactions always align with this core policy.

I appreciate your suggestion regarding the review of my previous accounts by a trusted admin. I will take steps to find a trusted admin who is willing to review my history and confirm compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I will communicate with them privately by email as you suggested. Please be sure to append the offline message template to my talk page if you chose to email me.

If there are any details or clarifications you require, please feel free to ask. FailedMusician (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello FailedMusician,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, China and the opioid epidemic in the United States, for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Opioid epidemic in the United States. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

As you have edited the following pages (tin the last 24 hours, let alone this week), I have not visted.

United States sanctions against China

Anti-fentanyl legislation in the United States ‎

Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Nor have I nominated (or has any activity on another page you have created, in the last 24 hours)

Draft:Yesuf Fit

Its a bit of to say I am following you about. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You deliberately put a "speedy delete" tag on the China fentanyl page to harass me and my efforts. It is really very obvious for anyone to see. FailedMusician (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you using an LLM to create responses to queries and noticeboard discussions? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. I just use ChatGPT to correct my grammar and spelling. FailedMusician (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

[1] [2] [3] and your recent contributions to WP:AN appear wholly created by chatgpt. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I mainly use it for correcting grammar and spelling. FailedMusician (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you continue to use an LLM to create responses or content, as you have obviously done, you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have not used an LLM to "create" content as you claimed. I used ChatGPT to refine my grammar and spelling. There is no policy against this. FailedMusician (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

An IP has just suggested that the sources you cited in your draft are 'ChatGPT generated'. [4] A quick Google/Google Scholar check seems not to provide any evidence to the contrary. To avoid any doubt though, could you please either provide links to the articles you cited, or otherwise explain as to how they can be accessed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In this case, there was a hallucinated source by ChatGPT, a mistake on my part. Otherwise the subject is notable, well written, and sourced, and I am proud of it. I would like to make many more articles on Ethiopian cuisine and ChatGPT is a valuable tool for grammar, spelling, and even finding sources, but I need to do better to check them myself. FailedMusician (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, you are suggesting that only one of the sources was 'hallucinated'? If so, can you please tell us which one, and let us know how we can access the other two. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since one source was hallucinated, its possible that the second one is inaccurate. THat's why in this instance, I failed to adhere to how LLMs should be used on Wikipedia, which should be limited to grammar and spelling. I will correct the draft and get it republished as an article because its a notable subject in Ethiopian cuisine and culture. FailedMusician (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A simple question. Have you ever accessed any of the three sources supposedly cited in the draft? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think FailedMusician is not aware that the references LLMs insert in texts are just made up and not real references. It is a common misconception. Probably all sources in this text are simply made up by the AI. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just told you that the sources were hallucinated by the AI, so obviously I did not access them. I was surprised ChatGPT would do that, because I have accessed sources it gave me on other subjects. FailedMusician (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So you were lying about only using chatgpt for spelling and grammar? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was not a lie. I didn't realise myself that I had used ChatGPT in an improper way. I copyedited the text it generated on the subject, but wasn't aware there was a problem with the sources it found (I was not clear in my prompt that they should be real sources). ChatGPT is very shy of referencing sources because of copyright infringement charges it faces. There are plenty of other sources on the Ethiopian dish I wrote about, and I can simply correct the mistake by referencing them instead. FailedMusician (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"ChatGPT is very shy of referencing sources because of copyright infringement" ← what does that even mean? Referencing a source is never a copyright infringement. If however it means that if ChapGPT used a real source, it would clue people in to how ChapGPT's text is itself an infringement, then adding that text to Wikipedia would be a no-no, right? In any case this shows FM was not using software just "for spelling and grammar". Bon courage (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

. FailedMusician (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would probably assist your request if you could provide a response to my request above for clarification regarding the sources cited in Draft:Yesuf Fitfit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

... and the results of the "review" you said you'd be conducting into the copyvio you (or your software) did here.[5] In light of this problem, your alt account(s) should probably be disclosed too. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Related to that when I saw this come up, it reminded of the recent ANI where we discussed FM's WP:CLEANSTART violations. Using software generated text can come across as an attempt to avoid comparison to their previous account(s) in terms of mannerisms, and even if it's not the case, the insistence on this despite the problems caused is just odd.

One top of all the combative issues that came up at ANI, a recent block warning, and this block in part because of the WP:IDHT responses over at SFR's talk page, the indef makes sense. ScottishFinnishRadish, I think at ANI the CLEANSTART issues were largely just left be, but if copyright issues with an LLM are an issue here (on top of previous issues) would that be a valid reason for a CheckUser similar to a sockpuppet investigation? It's an odd situation in terms of what is considered "normal" for SPI/clean starts, but the continued red flags about this account continuing past behavior from their previous account leave me wondering if problems are being missed whether its copyright or behavior. KoA (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know that concerns over copyvio are sufficient for what basically amounts to CU fishing. I don't disagree that we should be aware of the earlier account, but our tools to make that happen are limited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree that I'd want to be careful about CU too, so I wasn't sure how this would fit or not. Just an odd situation overall seems to be hitting wikilawyering blind spots more than once in different areas. KoA (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would not personally be comfortable collaborating with FailedMusician until they disclosed what the other account they edited with. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I replied to the comment above. It was a mistake on my part, but if you look at the article overall, and my contributions overall, it is a single instance of a false citation, which was my mistake for not checking on my own. FailedMusician (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

And have you conducted your "review" of the copyvio you did yet? Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio is a very common mistake on Wikipedia, and easily corrected. I corrected it by simply removing it, but there is no point to rewrite it when the article has been deleted. FailedMusician (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the 'article overall', I can see absolutely nothing supported by a valid citation. Or indeed, any evidence that any actual research into the topic was done at all. Unless and until I see evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to assume that the article was created in any manner more involved than simply asking ChatGPT to write an article from scratch, providing it with nothing but a title. That, needless to say, is grossly improper. If this assumption is incorrect, perhaps FailedMusician could tell us where he did get information on 'Yesuf Fitfit' from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The comment above handwaves the nonexistent source as a "ChatGPT hallucination" which would indicate FailedMusician didn't actually try to read any of the sources for this article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I only just realised this user had been indeffed. Was there a discussion about it? Or was this due to the single mistake made with the "made up" reference? Also I see accusations of using AI tools to write content/replies with @ScottishFinnishRadish saying that they "appear wholly created by chatgpt". I wonder how that determination was made though. Is it even possible to determine that reliably? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have you read much that was generated by chatgpt? It's pretty easy to spot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I use it significantly, yes, but I disagree that it is easy to identify. This is especially true if an LLM has "revised" or "corrected" some original text by the user. is that evaluation made solely on your "gut feeling"? Thoroughly checking the generated text to ensure no hallucinations are present and that all content is appropriately sourced is crucial. But as far as I know, using AI-generated text is permitted on Wikipedia, including for article text generation (see WP:LLM,WP:AI). Or am I missing something? (Was this text generated by a human or not? ;) ) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The draft had three made-up sources, which not only isn't checking the generated text to ensure no hallucinations are present, it's obviously telling chatgpt to create an article causing it to shit out what looks like sources. There's also additions like This is a discrepancy suggesting that the close may have not accurately reflected consensus, requiring this discussion. which is obviously created by an LLM. Consensus discussions are not the place to paste what an LLM thinks about something. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree the sourcing of that draft is shit. However that's what drafts are for. The user doesn't strike me as a particularly advanced user or they would never have proposed inserting such a poorly sourced article into article space. However, is a single mistake like that sufficient for an indefinite ban? I don't see any issues with that other diff you provided. Even if LLM generated (maybe it is, who knows) what's wrong with it? We really had to go from 0 to indeffed just for those diffs? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, drafts are absolutely 'not an appropriate place for ChatGPT-hallucination 'citations'. Never. Not under any circumstances. The draft creator is responsible for the content. All of it. They are responsible for locating sources around which an article should be constructed, and writing the content according to what they say. Citing anything, real or hallucinated, which hasn't been read is misrepresentation. It is grossly improper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. What I meant was: "we have drafts so that gross mistakes by inexperienced users can be caught before being published". However blocks should not be WP:PUNITIVE. Are those mistakes worth loosing an editor indefinitely? Wouldn't a shorter block "send the message"? I'm not an admin so it isn't up to me but in my experience this editor has also contributed positively to the project and I don't think we should loose them permanently. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have you been using ChatGPT on Wikipedia @Gtoffoletto? Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because this [6] looks like ChatGPT to me if I am being honest. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the record: maybe I'm too sensitive, but this out of topic questioning feels extremely toxic to me. It feels like an attempt at intimidation and harassment by someone who has disagreed on content with me in the past (exactly on the text they quoted). I tried to politely raise this issue on Simonm223's talk page but they have doubled down and archived the discussion [7] without addressing my concerns. I trust enough admins are in this discussion already to review this without the need for me to open an ANI thread @ScottishFinnishRadish {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say rather that I felt disinclined to continue talking to you since you think one such question constitutes harassment. Archiving a discussion is not, in fact, doubling down on purported harassment - it's disengaging from it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your failure to realize your toxic behavior and continuing to engage in it by asking me again the same question instead of addressing my concerns is doubling down on your harassment. You should strike your questions above. This is a witch hunt. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't look like ChatGPT. Maybe if it added a "highlighting concerns about Russian agents using directed energy weapons." That looks like a one sentence summary of a source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is not the point though @ScottishFinnishRadish. I think we might be treating this whole topic incorrectly turning this thread into an unconstructive witch hunt.

Let's ignore the user harassing me then and focus on the issues I see with this block:

1. It is partially based on the belief that any use of LLMs is inappropriate which appears to not be supported by the community (see WP:LLM)
2. It was performed without warning or educating the user properly per WP:BEFOREBLOCK. You warned the user not to "use an LLM to create responses or content"[8] (which I don't think is appropriate, see previous point) and then blocked them for something they had already done in the past (apparently due to the Draft:Yesuf Fitfit that was published a month before)
3. It is disproportionate and WP:PUNITIVE. An indef block without warning for a single offense that didn’t even make it live and that the user recognized, apologized for and proposed to help fix? What happened to assuming good faith?
4. It is based on arbitrary judgements “I think this is/isn’t AI”. I think you are incorrectly assuming that AI generated text can be reliably identified. This is false [9]. It is extremely challenging/impossible to tell for sure if an LLM was used to process text especially if collaboratively edited with a human. And I don't think we should care if it was as long as the result follows policy and is of high quality (the Yesuf Fitfit Draft was definitely not). The community seems to agree with this view in WP:LLM.

I would appreciate a reply to those points as I believe a block review would be appropriate here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The block was already reviewed by another admin. Bon courage (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The unblock request was reviewed, not the original block. And I agree the unblock request was insufficient. I don't think the other admin spent a lot of time reviewing the original block reason. Even if they did, my concerns above are pretty objective I think and require some clarification. An inexperienced user was infinitely blocked without warning for a single offence. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you believe my judgement in this situation was flawed WP:AN or WP:XRV are the venues that can review the action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’d like to hear what you think about the points I raised. Am I missing something? (E.g. maybe I missed some other action by the user or you warning them elsewhere). I don’t want you to feel like I am attacking your judgement. This is a new and delicate matter. I don’t know much about “admin stuff” and am just asking for some clarification for the user involved. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It should probably be noted that, contrary to the assertion above, FailedMusician is not an 'inexperienced user'. See the thread entitled 'Your previous editing' above, where FM refers to having 'previous accounts'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. LLM use is covered by the same WP:DE guideline as all other editing. Creating articles or drafts with faked sources, whether the creation is by LLM or otherwise is disruptive. Manipulation of internal project discussions by means of having an LLM create arguments is disruptive.
2. They were warned and restored the content at WP:AN. Additionally, they said that they were only using LLMs for grammar and spelling which is false on its face, as grammar does not extend to making up citations. Blocks are used to prevent disruptive behavior. If after being called out and warned for behavior an editor maintains that they are not engaging in that behavior there is no reason to believe that they would cease the behavior.
3. Indefinite is not infinite, and until there is a reason to believe that they understand the issues with their editing and those issues will not continue the block is preventing disruption.
4. My judgement was good enough where they admitted to using an LLM. Passing familiarity with ChatGPT output makes it clear that an LLM was being used. The patterns are completely different than their normal engagement style, and match ChatGPT generated text patterns. On top of the text style, there were the citations, which match the pattern of what real citations look like, but were fabricated out of whole cloth. That evidence, along with the distinct style that ChatGPT produces makes the block well within the sphere of judgement calls that admins are routinely tasked with making.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply and clarification. I see your point of view better and I think it might help FailedMusician understand what went wrong and appeal properly if they wish to do so. I hope they understand your 3rd point especially and hope they will be back having learned from this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you thought it useful to dispute the use of LLMs. It seems there's no dispute that at least one and possibly three sources are made up. In that case there are two reasonable scenarios. (I mean you could have other weird ones involving someone else making the article for FaileMusician but that's getting into very weird scenarios.) One is that FailedMusician made up the source/s themselves. That being the case, FailedMusician was deservedly indeffed, with the indef probably being something close to infinite. It's completely unacceptable for any editor to make up sources, as it cuts against the heart of what Wikipedia is about; as any editor experienced with Wikipedia should know. It's very, very difficult to trust an editor who makes up sources enough to allow them back on Wikipedia. Even when done in a submitted draft (so not some weird temporary thing they didn't intend any else to take as true), there's is no way this isn't an indef worth offence. The alternative is that the editor used an LLM which made up the citations. This is still very bad, but since the editor is more extremely foolish rather than completely untrustworthy, I can see path back to editing. It's far easier to think an editor who used an LLM will realise oh I should never do that, than an editor who thought 'well I don't have sources for this but who cares, I'll just make them up'. In other words, if you truly believe that this wasn't the work of an LLM, this doesn't mean the block was unjustified. In fact it means the block was even more justified. And while technically indefinite is not infinite, under your scenario, it probably should be. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have raised the possibility before[10] about FailedMusician taking content from others, but got no response. I assume FM is not dumb enough to copy-paste from sources, which is why I strongly suspect they're "handling" content for others. That, and the undisclosed alts, is suggestive of a serious problem even before the LLM considerations. Bon courage (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I already reviewed one unblock request from you, but I will tell you straight away that if I were to even consider unblocking you after reading all of the above, it would be with a strict condition that everything you write on Wikipedia, whether articles, talk pages, or otherwise, be entirely in your own words. No copy-pasting (except short, properly marked and attributed quotations), no use of LLMs/chatbots in any way, nothing anyone else wrote for you, no nothing like that. And, while it should be common sense one would think, that you must read sources prior to citing them, but that's something already generally expected of all editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I agree to all the above, but there may be grammar and spelling mistakes with my own words due to my level of English. FailedMusician (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hope any reviewing admin also considers community comments concerning possible WP:CLEANSTART abuse and undisclosed accounts. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What evidence leads you to have those concerns? I see the same editors that disagreed on content with FM in the Havana Syndrome page and that have already reported them unsuccessfully in the past throwing around vague accusations. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Well, I'm telling you what I'd think, and not guaranteeing an unblock for that—there's enough concern raised here that I wouldn't be comfortable unilaterally deciding to unblock without either community review or agreement from others who have raised concerns. And on more thought, I don't think I would consider unblocking you at all unless you publicly disclose your former accounts. But, again, I'm not guaranteeing that I will unblock you if you do in fact do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can discuss former contributions, but that should be in private by email. I mainly used made edits to my university profile and subjects of interest in politics and society. Certain editors have already accused other editors (like @BootsED and @Coreyman317) of being connected to me. These allegations are false and I have never met those users online or in the real world. There are many people interested in the Havana syndrome subject from news coverage. FailedMusician (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just got pinged here and not 100% sure I follow all the accusations going around. Will chime in though and state that it is clear to me that FailedMusician, whether or not he uses an LLM makes good edits and contributions. On the Havana Syndrome page Musician better articulated the point I was trying to make in the talk page discussion. His knowledge on the intricacies of Wikipedia policy is extensive and far surpasses mine. Musician and a few other editors got into heated back and forth on the Havana syndrome page so there may be some bad blood between them. I was accused of being a sock puppet of Musician at one point but that is not the case. Don't really know how I am supposed to prove that point though. I am against using LLM's in general but do not know whether it is Wikipedia policy or not for/against using them. Obviously source hallucination is a bad thing, and false citations doubly so. Again, I don't know if FM was given a warning ahead of time or not regarding this, but I don't believe a permanent ban is necessary if this is just a simple misunderstanding regarding an LLM. BootsED (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad that yet another editor commented that there is no transgression in using an LLM in and of itself. It is how it is used, and I have already admitted to mistakes in that respect, and committed to checking my work more carefully in the future. FailedMusician (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I agree I want to be clear that your blind use of LLMs was spectacularly negligent. It is a common mistake not to realise that the references inserted by LLMs are "made up", but Wikipedia:Verifiability is crucial on Wikipedia. It won't be easy to regain the trust of the community after such a grave mistake. If you wish to continue contributing to the encyclopaedia it will be up to you to convince others that you deserve a second chance. I recommend reading thoroughly the guide on appealing blocks (see: WP:NICETRY) to make sure you address the concerns of the community thoroughly and ensure this will not happen again. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

give the continued evasiveness in the 'Sources for Draft:Yesuf Fitfit' thread above (combined incidentally with a complete misunderstanding of how ChatGPT actually works) it seems self-evident to me that FailedMusician cannot be trusted to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll second this as well as the WP:CLEANSTART abuse issues. FM made it very clear they had a chip on their shoulder right away about battleground behavior and lashing out at the WP:FTN noticeboard as discussed earlier at ANI. Seraphimblade mentioned above that FM should disclose their accounts, and if those accounts have clear issues with battleground behavior, fringe topics, etc. (not just a bright line block/sanction), that would violate the clean start: However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may also lead to additional sanctions. KoA (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems like a stretch. FM has already agreed to privately disclose their previous account/s. If that is a real concern (don't see any hard evidence but only vague FUD) an admin can verify the previous contributions. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not a stretch at all when you look at actual behavioral evidence already discussed, and downplaying FM's behavior while lashing out at other editors isn't helpful. The community has very legitimate issues with FM's behavior, and the question is if those issues can be adequately addressed. That's why other editors have been briefly speaking up here.

As I've mentioned before, please take the advice you got from your UFO topic ban seriously about your battleground attitude and constant pushing on talk pages. When multiple editors have indicated they are trying to avoid interacting with you (including me) and you keep pursuing them not just in a WP:HOUNDING/WP:BLUDGEON fashion but outright sniping/battleground loaded comments, that should be a clear sign to step back from the brink. After all of your topic bans and blocks, especially after one for seriously harassing me, you shouldn't be pursuing me with more personal attacks accusing me or others of manipulative propaganda tactics as you just did.

Since FM's block you've been posting here more than FM or anyone else for that matter in just the last few days.[11] Let things breath a bit so admins can work with FM. KoA (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not a CLEANSTARTER, never lashed out at FTN, and didn't battle anyone, but given your motives, it's understandable why you claim all of that. Your comments on my talk page, casting aspersions against me and others, look very much like WP:HOUNDING and personal vendettas. Neither you, LegalSmeagolian, nor Simonm223 contributed to the Havana syndrome page until Bon courage posted on FTN, amounting to on-wiki canvassing. You misread and repeatedly denied the consensus, despite most editors favouring inclusion across multiple discussions. The RFC I posted shows the community clearly supports inclusion with a full description of the report. FailedMusician (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You asserted that you stopped using an old account without sanctions and started exclusively using a new account, that's what WP:CLEANSTART is. And you told Nil Einne last month that you were adhering to WP:CLEANSTART or does that not count because it was a bot talking and not you?

That is also not what canvassing means. In any case, we're well beyond anything to do with the Havana syndrome page, which is a minor issue at this point.

This is all in WP:CIR territory. An uninvolved admin ought to remove TPA and leave a note about WP:OFFER. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did not assert anything about an old account, and my reply to Nil Einne in relation to WP:CLEANSTART very plainly says its not relevant to me. FailedMusician (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your suggestion regarding the review of my previous accounts by a trusted admin. I will take steps to find a trusted admin who is willing to review my history and confirm compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You fully admitted to having an old account right here to Nil Einne. Did you ever find that trusted admin? Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am of the camp where I think that response was entirely generated by an LLM with the prompt "write a response to {paste Nil Einne's message here}." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

GPTZero treats this as 98% likely created by ChatGPT. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

My thinking human brain tells me it is 100% LLM created. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also note "accounts", plural. Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

By previous accounts I meant IPs, which can be considered accounts, and can be disclosed to administrators. FailedMusician (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So you previously edited under different accounts. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the record I edited the page after listening to a Chapo Trap House episode which discussed the affliction rather than @Bon courage's post at FTN. Also can you confirm if you used an LLM in regards to any of the content on the Havana Syndrome page, including the talk page discussions? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You may very well have seen it in an episode of Friends or House, but you were quite clearly canvassed by Bon courage to the article from a noticeboard, which he was warned against. What the latest RFC proves is that there was a consensus for inclusion of the investigative report in the article, and yours and your FTN buddies' reverts were against community consensus. No LLMs were used in the production of that content, because I explained in the RFCBEFORE discussion [12], it was first added by another editor. FailedMusician (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

How would I have seen it if it was a podcast episode? I was not canvassed lol - also notice how once an uninvolved admin closed the discussion no one has reverted that part? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and it is another failed campaign of FTN, as the article now reflects community consensus. FailedMusician (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well.... that escalated quickly. KoA: as usual you accuse others of your own behaviour. I advise you to focus more on your own behaviour and block log. Cheers {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Confused how @KoA's behavior is an issue as all his bans were quickly reversed versus yours, which are ongoing. Regardless this page should be about/ discuss @FailedMusician's problematic editing and useage of an LLM. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, FailedMusician. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hopper (company), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, FailedMusician. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yesuf Fitfit, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply