Arman360Editor

It is approximately 10:59 AM where this user lives (Cox's Bazar). []

February 2025

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently edited may not conform to some of Wikipedia’s guidelines for articles. Please ensure that your edits follow the Manual of Style and that all information is properly sourced from reliable references. For more information, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Introduction. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia. — CanonNi (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

---

December 2025

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Faridul Mostafa Khan, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 15:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

February 2026

Hello, I'm Yue. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Yue,

Thanks for reaching out and letting me know about this. I appreciate you taking the time to check my edit. I am still learning how to follow Wikipedia writing standards properly, so your feedback helps me improve.

I did not mean to add anything that could cause problems. I will go back, review sources, and rewrite the content. If you noticed any specific issue in my edit, I would really appreciate it if you could point it out so I can fix it correctly.

Thanks again for your help and patience. Arman360Editor (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝙴𝚙𝚒𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚢👁👄👁 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I understand the importance of keeping discussion pages as an accurate record and will avoid editing or removing others’ comments in the future. I appreciate the reminder and will review the welcome page to make sure I follow proper contribution practices. Arman360Editor (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you unconstructively edit Wikipedia using a large language model, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanveer Evan (2nd nomination). ROY is WAR Talk! 23:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Royiswariii,

I appreciate your feedback. I understand the concern and I have already changed my approach. I will continue to focus my edits on constructive policy based edits.

Are there any specific issues with my edits that have not been addressed? I would appreciate the guidance. Arman360Editor (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Bro, even the reply was likely generated by an LLM... :') — Raihanur (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have concerns about phrasing, you can use tools like Grammarly. But you shouldn't use an LLM while editing, especially on discussion pages. Discussion comments should reflect your own reasoning. — Raihanur (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I know my reply is looking like genarated by LLM cause of I use most uncommunicable word. but In my case I try to make accurate word for knowing accurate situation that's why It's look like LLM Genarate. Arman360Editor (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Arman360Editor. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Arman360Editor. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Arman360Editor|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Shovon Ahmed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shovon Ahmed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shovon Ahmed 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JTtheOG (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to support keeping this article. The subject appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines because there is coverage from independent and reliable sources. I believe the article can be improved further by adding additional citations, improving neutrality, and expanding verifiable information.

Deletion may remove useful encyclopedic content. Instead, improving sourcing and formatting would better align the article with Wikipedia standards. I am willing to help improve the article by adding reliable references and ensuring it follows Wikipedia policies. Arman360Editor (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Tanveer Evan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tanveer Evan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanveer Evan (2nd nomination) 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ROY is WAR Talk! 20:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I respectfully request that the article Tanveer Evan be retained.

The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines through coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. These sources provide significant discussion of the subject’s work and public presence, rather than routine mentions or primary material. The article can be improved further by refining citations, tightening prose, and ensuring full compliance with Wikipedia’s content policies.

I acknowledge the concerns raised in this second nomination and encourage editors to focus on strengthening the article rather than removing it. Deletion should be a last resort when improvement is not possible. In this case, there is sufficient verifiable material available to support notability under existing guidelines.

I welcome constructive feedback and will assist in improving the article during the discussion period.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Arman360Editor (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Do not make demonstrably false claims at Requests for page protection

There are no incidents of vandalism or IP editors at Faridul Mostafa Khan, as you have stated in your report. What I see is an inexperienced wikipedian who apparently thinks page protection is for keeping their own version of the article in page space. I'm about ready to block you from your own page creation. So stop acting like a jerk before I or some other sysop) does. BusterD (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment. I understand your point. I did not intend to control the article or prevent constructive edits. I was concerned about maintaining stability and may have misunderstood when protection is appropriate. I will withdraw the request and focus on improving the article through discussion and reliable sources. If I have misunderstood the policy, I would appreciate your guidance. Arman360Editor (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Faridul Mostafa Khan is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Faridul Mostafa Khan is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arman360Editor -- Arman360Editor (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Arman360Editor, please do not continue to create the Talk:Faridul Mostafa Khan/GA1 page. By doing so, you are preventing your GA nomination of this article from being picked up by a reviewer: if the page exists, the assumption is that the article is being reviewed, so you are preventing a review from happening. Further, nominators are not allowed to open review pages for their own nominations, something you have now done twice.

I am going to attempt to have the page deleted again. If, once that happens, you should create a Talk:Faridul Mostafa Khan/GA1 page for a third time, I will have to assume that you are not serious about this nomination, and the nomination will almost certainly be deleted. Please note that there is an enormous backlog at GAN at the moment, and it may well take months before a reviewer chooses your nomination to review. Be patient, and a reviewer will come. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoonset,

I appreciate your clarification, and I will refrain from creating the Talk:Faridul Mostafa Khan/GA1 page. My next step will be to wait for a reviewer to take the nomination via the standard GAN process.

Once again, thank you for the support, and I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

Best,

Arman360Editor (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Arman360Editor's last warning of using LLMs on AfD. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mainul Ahsan Nobel

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 Mainul Ahsan Nobel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. BusterD (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the CSD G4 tagging of Mainul Ahsan Nobel. I get why you are concerned about deleting it and then recreating it.. I have rewritten and expanded the current version of the article a lot. I used reliable sources to show that the subject is notable.

I tried to fix the problems from the last deletion discussion by finding sources updating the content and changing the way the article is structured. If there are still problems please let me know so I can fix them.

If you think the article needs review then it would be better to discuss it in an Articles, for Deletion talk instead of deleting it quickly under G4. I am happy to keep improving the article to follow Wikipedia rules. --Arman360Editor (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused about this topic. Is this BLP topic considered notable because of all their many legal difficulties? This seems to be the central subject (14/18) of applied page sources. BusterD (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Mainul Ahsan Nobel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mainul Ahsan Nobel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainul Ahsan Nobel 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Faridul Mostafa Khan has failed

Your good article nomination of the article Faridul Mostafa Khan has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MCE89 -- MCE89 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Alessio Ippolito for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alessio Ippolito is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessio Ippolito 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

KH-1 (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The Lizard Army moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The Lizard Army. 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, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and Needs multiple secondary sources with significan coverage. 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. Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Lizard Army Logo 2026.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Lizard Army Logo 2026.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

LLM use

Hello, I'm JTtheOG. An article that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. In particular, you should check each citation, and fictitious references must be removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JTtheOG (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alessio Ippolito

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 Alessio Ippolito requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JTtheOG (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is UPE and a return to posting AI slop after promising to stop. Athanelar (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard.  voorts (talk/contributions) 01:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Mainul Ahsan Noble for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mainul Ahsan Noble 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/Mainul Ahsan Noble (2nd nomination) 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.

Athanelar (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Faridul Mostafa Khan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faridul Mostafa Khan 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/Faridul Mostafa Khan 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.

Athanelar (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:The Lizard Army

The page Draft:The Lizard Army has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

G11 (advert), G15 (LLM use)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Fences&Windows 07:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Block appeal

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).

Arman360Editor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I know why I was blocked and I am willing to accept the blame for my changes. My edits were not good enough for Wikipedia especially when it came to finding the sources being neutral and making sure the information was correct.

Now I get it that Wikipedia requires the use of high-quality, independent reliable sources and strictly neutral, verifiable writing, especially for biographies (WP, WP, WP). I also understand concerns related to WP and the importance of contributing constructively rather than creating or promoting content too quickly.

If you decide to unblock me I will be more careful and thoughtful in my approach.

• I will not make articles for now and instead I will focus on making small changes that are helpful.

• I will only add information that comes from sources that're reliable and independent.

• I will make sure the content sounds neutral and like an encyclopedia and I will avoid using words that are not supported by sources or that sound like I am trying to sell something.

• I will ask for feedback when I am not sure about something and I will follow what the community says.

I am okay, with being restricted in what I can edit, such as being able to edit certain topics or only being able to work on drafts. I want to help Wikipedia in a way that follows the rules and what the community expects.

Thank you for thinking about my request. Arman360Editor (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

---

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) Hi ChatGPT, can you please ask this editor to read WP:LLMAPPEAL? Thank you. Blue-Sonnet 15:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In the first ANI about you, you claimed you understood what you did wrong and would not use LLMs. From the above, it appears that you then used LLMs. Now, in your unblock request, it appears to be an LLM-generated request, as your various shortcuts, rather than pointing to a policy page, are simply "WP". This does not give the impression that you will actually change your behavior. Continued LLM use is likely to result in you losing the ability to edit your talk page.

I expect it'll be very difficult to find an administrator to unblock you; I imagine it would require a very convincing and specific admission of what you did wrong, and why the policies you violated are in place. An alternative that is more likely to be achievable is to take the WP:Standard offer; edit some other Wikimedia project (e.g., one in your native language) for six months without getting into trouble there, and without making ANY edits to the English Wikipedia. Then, after those six months, come back and request an unblock per WP:SO. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments User:Blue-Sonnet and User:EducatedRedneck. I read WP:LLMAPPEAL carefully.

I made a mistake. I used computer-generated text without checking it even after my earlier warning. This led to sources, weak verification and content that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. This is especially important for biographies of living people.

I see what you mean about my appeal. It was too general. Didn't show I understood the policies. When I wrote "WP" I wasn't specific. That made it look like I didn't understand the guidelines.

I get why these policies exist now. WP:V. WP:RS help ensure information can be checked and trusted. WP:BLP is strict because wrong information about living people can cause harm. My edits didn't meet those standards.

If I get another chance I won't use computer-generated text. I will check sources myself and make small edits first.

I know trust is low now. If needed I'll follow the WP:Standard offer. Edit other Wikimedia projects before requesting to return.

Thanks for your advice and, for explaining your concerns. Arman360Editor (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you currently using AI, LLM, Chatbots or machine translation to write your responses here? Blue-Sonnet 16:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet No, I am not using any LLM To Translate The Response Arman360Editor (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming - did you use AI/LLM to write your appeal above? I just want to understand what you've written and what the AI has written, so we can give you good advice on what to do next. Blue-Sonnet 16:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to answer @Blue-Sonnet. I did not use any LLM to help me write my appeal.

I should have written the appeal myself. I see why using a LLM to help me makes people question my trustworthiness.

Thank you for asking. Arman360Editor (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank so much for responding. Administrators are really busy, but they will get to your appeal as soon as they can - I just wanted to clear some things up before they came along, that way they can deal with your appeal much more quickly. In the meantime, you might want to look through the List of Wikipedias to see if there's one that you might want to use if a Standard offer is recommended - working on another project in the meantime can be incredibly useful on future appeals, they often change a "No" into a "Yes" if you've got a good history of productive editing to bring as evidence. Blue-Sonnet 17:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Blue-Sonnet. I really appreciate the time you took to help me and explain things.

I get what you are saying about the offer. If my appeal is not accepted, I will think about joining another Wikimedia project and work on making an editing history there before asking to come back.

Thanks again, for your help. I really appreciate it. Arman360Editor (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Please do not take us for idiots. Your appeal was obviously at least partially AI generated; if for no other reason than there's obviously a section where the chatbot intended to quote various policies/guidelines but seems to have messed up, and simply said (WP, WP, WP) without actually linking anything. It similarly did the same right after; I also understand concerns related to WP The concerns related to WP:what?

If your English proficiency is not high enough for you to feel confident writing on your own without the help of AI tools, then go and edit on the Wikipedia project for your preferred language. But do not continue to respond to us with obviously AI-generated text while lying about it. Again, we are not idiots. We deal with enough AI-generated text on a day to day basis to know how it looks, especially when somebody is mixing their actual human-written words in with AI-generated text and the difference is as clear as night and day. By continuing to use AI here and lie about it, the only thing you're demonstrating is that you have neither the required competence nor the collaborative skills to operate in this community-driven project, and you're guaranteeing that you're going to stay blocked for the forseeable future. Athanelar (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I do have to agree; I didn't dig too much since it was rather obvious, but even now there are contradictions: "I did not use any LLM to help me write my appeal. I should have written the appeal myself" does not make sense - the first sentence says they didn't use AI but the second is saying that they did use AI.

Both of those sentences can't be true at the same time, one is therefore a lie and I think it's the first one.

@Arman360Editor, once and for all, did you use AI/LLM to write your appeal - yes or no?

Bear in mind that we deal with AI-generated appeals many times a day, so we know exactly what they look like and can tell if you're not being truthful. Blue-Sonnet 04:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I will answer clearly, @Blue-Sonnet and @Athanelar.

Yes I did use an LLM to help write parts of my appeal. My earlier statements did not. That was my fault. I should have been straightforward from the start.

I get why this is a problem. It affects trust. It makes it hard for you to know if I really understand the rules myself.

I take responsibility for that. I will not use LLM to help with Wikipedia editing or discussions, from now. I will write everything myself.

I understand if my appeal is turned down. If that happens I will follow the offer and work on another Wikimedia project before asking to come back.

Thank you for your time. Arman360Editor (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so the problem we have is that you've

• Used AI
• Tried to hide that you were using AI
• Used AI to defend yourself
• Lied about using AI
• Admitted that you used AI
• Promised to stop using AI
• Used AI to create multiple drafts and articles
• Used AI to argue against deletion of one of those articles
• Recreated drafts and articles after the community decided they should be deleted
• Used AI to edit a company that you have an apparent conflict of interest with
• Used AI to write your appeal
• Lied again about using AI
• Finally told the truth after being pushed

I have a horrible feeling that you're still using it now.

Why should administrators believe that you'll stop using AI when you've had so many warnings and explicitly said you'll stop using AI, yet you lied and went straight back to using it again? How can we know you're not still using it (and I think you are)?

You keep lying over and over again, only telling the truth when you're caught out.

Why should we trust you now, when we couldn't trust you all those times before? What's different this time? Blue-Sonnet 07:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The difference between the LLM writing and what I believe is their actual writing is stark. Arman360Editor, I think you may prefer the Bangla Wikipedia, which I see you've edited on before. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I know I used the word "lie", but this could easily be down to an LLM not understanding what it's been asked or not communicating (translating) the message correctly - that would definitely explain the contradictory post further up, which I don't think would happen to a native English speaker. That said, there's no way that this editor isn't aware that they shouldn't be using whatever this program is, not of the problems it's been causing as a result.

Also just saw their user page - I very much doubt they've won editor of the week and they definitely haven't made 10,000 edits! They've taken those user boxes from another editor and copied them over without understanding what they're actually saying.

@Arman360Editor, please consider editing Bangla Wikipedia instead of English Wikipedia, I'm sure you can speak English well enough to get by on a trip to London, but that's nowhere near enough to edit an encyclopedia. Blue-Sonnet 12:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hookay, I've removed the following userboxes, since they're blocked and can't do it themselves:

• 10,000 edits
• Editor of the week
• GA contributor
• Recent chances patroller
• PROD patroller
• Twinkle user

I've left the "contributes with a professional level of English" one, I think the truth of the matter is clear to see & it feels a bit mean to take it off/lower it.

They also claimed to have created pages which were entirely created by blocked sockpuppets, I'm hoping that's a mistake and this isn't an LTA from 2020. Blue-Sonnet 13:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, @Blue-Sonnet.

I was really wrong to do what I did. I kept using intelligence even after people told me not to. At first I did not tell the truth about it. I only said something when people caught me. That made people not trust me. I get why you and others do not believe what I say now.

What is different this time is that I am not trying to make excuses for what I did. I am saying clearly that I was wrong to keep using intelligence and wrong to not be honest about it. I know that just saying sorry is not enough to make people trust me again.

I am okay with being blocked from the site. If that is what you decide I will not try to find a way around it. I will do what I am supposed to do and spend some time working on another project like the Bangla Wikipedia without using any intelligence tools and without causing any problems. Then I can ask to come

I know that the only way to get people to trust me again is to show them that I can behave over time not by saying things, like this.

Thank you for listening to me. Arman360Editor (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you use an AI, LLM, chatbot or machine translation to write any part of this last post, and can you please admit it the first time we ask instead of making us ask you twice to get the truth? Blue-Sonnet 00:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not used any AI, LLM To Translate The Last Post and This is Truth Arman360Editor (talk) Arman360Editor (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm removing talk page privileges. BusterD (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Good call, I'm not sure why I even gave them that last chance to come clean - it was already clear enough that they're still at it. Blue-Sonnet 10:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's always a sad thing. BusterD (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jibon Ara

The article Jibon Ara has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Creator has been blocked for indiscriminate AI use, has confirmed they used this to generate all their articles and their block appeal shows that they don't understand English well enough to do proper source verification

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)