I respectfully request reconsideration of this block. I believe there has been a misunderstanding of my intentions. I have not edited the article in question, nor have I attempted to remove criticism or whitewash content. My contributions were limited to the Talk page, where I raised good-faith, policy-based concerns regarding attribution, balance, and compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:BLPGROUP.

I have not engaged in disruption, canvassing, or advocacy editing. I’ve only asked that reputational and interpretive claims (particularly about living individuals) be clearly attributed to sources, rather than stated in Wikipedia’s voice. My tone has been consistently civil and policy-focused, and if my formality or thoroughness came across as artificial, I sincerely apologise. My goal is to help ensure that Wikipedia articles remain encyclopaedic and policy-compliant.

Being labelled “not here to build an encyclopedia” and accused of posting “AI-generated garbage” felt unfair and personal, especially when my engagement was grounded in policy and collaboration. If any of my contributions were unclear or raised concern, I am fully willing to clarify or adjust them in line with community norms. I ask for a chance to resume constructive participation.

Having read the talk page in question, I agree with this block. PhilKnight (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This may be my final opportunity to respond before being blocked from my talk page as well, so I ask that this be read in good faith.

The rationale given for my indefinite block asserts that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia" and that I have posted "unhelpful AI-generated text walls" in an attempt to "shout down consensus-building processes." Yet no diffs have been cited. No specific examples have been presented. There is no evidence supplied that demonstrates a failure to follow policy—only an assertion based on interpretation and assumed motive.

Yes, my arguments were lengthy and detailed, but they were grounded in core content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP, and referenced relevant Wikipedia guidance. Is it really "shouting down" to challenge an apparent consensus when that consensus is arguably unsupported by policy or evidence? If thoughtful disagreement is now viewed as obstruction, then I fear Wikipedia risks becoming hostile to the very scrutiny that sustains it.

To suggest I am "not here to build an encyclopedia" overlooks the fact that my sole focus has been content-related — not edit warring, not disruption, not harassment. If the issue is tone, volume, or persistence, I am open to guidance. But blocking without warning, without engagement, and without pointing to actionable missteps contradicts Wikipedia’s ethos of collaborative editing and assumes guilt without process.

I ask that this be reviewed with a focus on what was actually said and done — not how it was perceived. Blocking should be based on verifiable conduct, not presumptions about motive.

Diffs are not necessary here since it's the totality of your edits that are problematic. You, for someone claiming to have no connection to it, seem very strongly personally invested in the Homeland Party article, a topic for which all but three of your edits are related to.(yes, I looked) After your first two edits you didn't edit for about 10 months but were somehow motivated to edit about this party. You also don't speak to your use of AI. We want to talk to you directly, not a chatbot. You're also hyperinterpreting policies and wikilawyering in an effort to qualify clear statements made by reliable sources. Wikipedia calls a spade a spade if most reliable sources do. Having reviewed the discussion carefully, I agree with the block as well and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wish to respectfully respond to the most recent decline, particularly as it was made by User:331dot, who has also participated in discussions on the Homeland Party talk page. While I understand administrators may comment across pages, I raise this as a potential issue of partiality, given that their involvement could suggest a prior position on the subject matter, which is central to the block. The decline asserts that diffs are "not necessary" and instead relies on "the totality of edits" — yet a block must still be grounded in verifiable conduct, not interpretation or assumption. The implication that a user cannot question framing or sourcing simply because they are engaged in one topic — even exclusively — raises concern. The policy does not prohibit focus; it prohibits disruption. I must re-emphasise: I did not edit the article itself, nor have I violated behavioural norms or editing restrictions. All engagement was on the talk page, with cited policy. I have not inserted POV content, whitewashed material, or canvassed. I also clarify that while I may use tools to assist in drafting policy-grounded language, I — the user — am responsible for all submissions and am fully willing to adjust my approach in line with community expectations. If any statements were overly formal, lengthy, or interpreted as overly rigid, I am open to guidance. But these do not in themselves violate policy. Again, I ask that future consideration focus on conduct and whether policy was breached — not presumed motive or style — and whether indefinite blocking was proportionate to actual actions taken. Fileas Fogg (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed the talk page in question, and I concur with my colleagues that your continued involvement there would not be to the benefit of the project. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe this block has become procedurally and substantively unsound. Despite repeatedly raising clear, policy-based concerns, every unblock request has been met with **summary rejection** — not based on specific diffs or policy violations, but instead on **speculation about motive**, assertions of being “unhelpful”, and a general impression that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia". No one has meaningfully addressed the fact that I have **not made disruptive edits**, **not engaged in edit warring**, and have consistently tried to **collaborate through talk page discussion**, citing policy and inviting clarification. Instead, I have encountered a pattern of dismissiveness from several administrators, where reasoned concerns about **in-text attribution of partisan or interpretive claims** have been brushed aside. Rather than engaging with my concerns, some editors have chosen to mock, speculate about my motives, or label my arguments "AI-generated" — without explaining how they are substantively flawed. This has created a hostile environment where raising legitimate, policy-grounded objections is treated as obstruction. My contributions were not about pushing a POV, but about ensuring that articles (particularly those dealing with reputational claims and political groups) adhere to the **basic editorial standards Wikipedia is built on**, such as distinguishing Wikipedia's voice from that of its sources. This is especially important where **contentious material about living people or organisations** is involved. This block, and the pattern of rejection that followed, increasingly appears to be based not on actual misconduct, but on discomfort with scrutiny and disagreement from a newcomer willing to question established editors. If my style or tone has been misread, I am open to recalibrating. But I ask for **specific feedback**, not blanket assumptions or characterisations. I remain willing to participate constructively and align with community expectations, but I should not be indefinitely blocked for raising content and sourcing concerns in good faith, with civility, and in line with policy. I respectfully request that my block be lifted, or at the very least, that this request receive a fresh and impartial review. Fileas Fogg (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am declining this request, as an impartial administrator with no interest in this topic area, because you have not addressed the issues that led to your block. Your block is based on a pattern of behavior; you can consider the diffs to be your projectspace and article talk page contributions if you wish. Disagreeing with the characterization of your edits as "disruptive" is not a compelling reason to be unblocked, and citing policy, however (in)correctly, does not make your edits inherently non-disruptive. That you continue to claim your edits were "policy-grounded" is indicative of exactly the kind of issues that led to your block: multiple experienced users have explained to you why your interpretation of various policies were wrong, and in response you ignored them and just restated your LLM-assisted opinion. This is uncollaborative and disruptive.
Any successful appeal will need to address how your edits were disruptive, how you will avoid the same behavior, and what you intend to do if unblocked. I would also avoid discussing your views on previous unblock requests; there is considerable irony in complaining about administrators speculating about your motives while you speculate about theirs. As stated above, you have the option to request a community review, but I too would advise against it. If you still wish to do so, I can copy over an appeal. Giraffer (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This may be my final opportunity to respond, so I will speak plainly. The justifications for my indefinite block have shifted from the speculative ("AI-generated") to the strategic ("coordinated POV pushing") to the circular ("the totality of your edits"). No administrator has pointed to specific diffs showing actual disruption, misconduct, or policy violation. Instead, assertions and tone judgments have stood in for evidence.

My arguments — yes, long — focused on core content policies: WP: NPOV, WP: V, WP: BLP, and WP: ATTRIBUTEPOV. They were raised not to "shout down" consensus but to ensure that contentious and reputationally significant claims in the Homeland Party article were properly attributed and neutrally presented. The consistent refusal to engage with this, paired with mischaracterisations of tone and motive, suggests not disruption on my part but discomfort with scrutiny.

A comment by User:Keeper of Albion ([diff](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1283274704)) confirms that the environment surrounding my block was deeply politicised. Rather than responding to diffs or misconduct, the comment frames my involvement as an extension of a partisan campaign — without evidence — and dismisses all content objections as "spurious" or "frivolous." It further includes a personal attack, calling me a "far-right apologist," and mocks my choice of username. These comments violate WP:NPA and reflect the kind of hostile groupthink I encountered throughout this process.

My voice has been persistent, and my style may be too formal for some. But I'd rather sound like a guidebook than a grab bag of slogans. And I find it ironic that those who claim a monopoly on proper interpretation have dismissed my concern for policy as "wikilawyering." Wikipedia is built on policy and process, not intuition and clique consensus.

It has also been repeatedly implied that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia" because I've been focused on one topic. But such focus is not prohibited, nor is concern for accuracy and policy compliance. I've made no article edits; my sole involvement was raising talk page concerns in good faith. My requests for attribution were described as disruptive, yet no one engaged with the content of those concerns.

If the issue is that I am "too AI-sounding," I will simply say this: I'd prefer the clarity of a language model to the smug circularity of administrators quoting each other. But to be clear, this is me ( not an LLM ) asking for a fair review.

I am open to guidance, mentoring, and even topic restrictions if the concern is conduct. But indefinite blocking without evidence or warning feels less like moderation and more like gatekeeping.

I respectfully request a fresh look at what I actually said, not at who I am assumed to be. ~~~~ Fileas Fogg (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The stated reason for your block is: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: Incessantly posting unhelpful AI-generated text walls in an apparent attempt to impose their POV by simply shouting down consensus-building processes". A review of your edits confirms that you have indeed been posting LLM-generated talk page messages, including unblock requests, which is apparent due to your use of non-wikitext markup. Your refusal to acknowledge your use of LLM-generated messages falls under two examples of not being here to build an encyclopedia: "General pattern of disruptive behavior" and "Dishonest and gaming behaviors". As this is your fifth declined unblock request in which you have not adequately addressed the reasons for your block, please use the Unblock Ticket Request System for future requests. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply