Obzidiann
February 2026
edit
Hello, Obzidiann. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Texas Band of Yaqui Indians, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Yuchitown (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Talk:Texas Band of Yaqui Indians. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Yuchitown (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger One ping only 07:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Appeal
edit
Obzidiann (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
I would like to appeal this block.
Thank you for allowing me to request an appeal, I want to be clear that I am not a sockpuppet of any other account. I have only this one account. I’ve used this account for a while and I have never used any other accounts to edit Wikipedia, or anything. In fact I recently began editing. The only thing I did was allow a researcher to come to my office and scan historical and genealogical documents using my Wi‑Fi. But they are independent and also not part of the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians, which I declared when I started editing that page that I was an enrolled member.
I also read a concern that my messages looked like AI. I don’t use AI tools to write my posts on here. I use a transcriber or speech‑to‑text app because I’m typing with only one hand after cts carpal tunnel surgery. I review what the transcriber writes and try to fix it, but that’s why some of my wording looks unusual. If you want, I can provide documentation privately, but Im trying to explain my situation publicly which is uncomfortable for me.
I have not attacked or targeted any individual editor. My intention has been to discuss article content and sources on Native American and recognition topics. If any of my comments come across as personal, I regret that and I will definitely avoid any wording that could sound that way.
In the future if allowed, if I am unblocked I will continue using only this account; follow the rules on sockpuppetry. Write in my own words, check what the transcriber writes, and avoid anything that generates text for me. I’ll make sure to keep discussions focused strictly on article content, sources, and policy, and I will be sure to follow the rules of dispute resolution. I will be mindful on Native topics, for neutral point of view and credible sourcing.
I am asking for another chance to contribute within these guidelines. If you think a partial or topic‑limited unblock is more appropriate, I would accept that too but I am linguist and can speak proficiently. Obzidiann (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your explanation is not consistent with the CheckUser technical data, which shows you logging out of one account, and logging into the other account the next minute. I am declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 10:29, 13 February 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.
- Checkuser evidence confirmed that you do, in fact, have other accounts and have used them to edit Wikipedia. In addition, your editing style and topics edited are a strong indication that neither of the two accounts that were CU-confirmed to each other are your first account here. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Can I please ask why you write in your appeal that you haven't attacked any other editor nor made personal comments against them, because I can't see any evidence that you've been accused of that? Why do you feel the need to make this claim?
- I also have to agree that your edits do look like they're AI-generated, so it may be that the program you're using has some form of AI integration.
- On top of this, I have concerns that you may have been using AI to find sources since several of them just don't exist, despite your edits claiming that they were recently retrieved (see & ). AI will often generate incorrect or hallucinate URL's, which doesn't bode well for your claim that you're not using AI.
- The phrasing you're using is often used by AI & isn't something we usually see from human-generated text - the same goes for your lengthy Talk page posts, which are difficult for other editors to navigate and understand (see WP:TLDR).
- I also note that you've been making significant edits to topics where you've declared a conflict of interest, contrary to the WP:COI guidelines which recommend making edit requests via the article Talk page for other (uninvolved) editors to make on your behalf.
- Finally, I'm not a Checkuser (CU) but I doubt that someone else using your WiFi on one occasion to scan some documents would explain the technical link between the different accounts - there will likely be much stronger evidence than that. Since CU's are the only admins who can lift CU blocks, I'm sure one of them can confirm when they assess this appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response. You’re right to question this. I did use a speech‑to‑text tool with AI features, and I should have been clear about that from the start. That likely contributed to odd phrasing and some bad source entries, and I apologise for the confusion and lack of transparency. I also accept that I mishandled WP:COI by editing instead of using talk‑page requests. If I am given another chance, I will not use AI‑assisted tools for content and will stick to brief, well‑sourced edit requests on talk pages, following WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:V. I'm very sorry for not being honest from the start I just wanted to help my tribe but I didn't do it properly. I'm sorry for everything. Obzidiann (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
New Appeal
editObzidiann (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
I would like to correct my previous unblock request. In that appeal I said I had only ever used one account; that was not accurate, and I apologize. I have edited using this account and the account SevenGenerationsResearch, but I am not TelGonzie and have never coordinated with that user. I understand that this creates concerns under WP:SOCK, and I regret that I was not fully transparent earlier. If unblocked, I will not use any other account to edit Wikipedia and will comply with WP:SOCK and WP:COI. I am willing to limit my participation to article talk‑page suggestions based on independent reliable sources, and to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V in any future editing. I respectfully request reconsideration of the block in light of this clarification and my commitment to abide by these policies.Obzidiann (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As per below, see you no sooner than six months from today, as per WP:SO. Yamla (talk) 11:54, 22 February 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.
- I don't understand this part Obzidiann (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Are you confirming that you operate both accounts?
You seem to be strongly inferring this, but you're not explicitly confirming it - it's not at all clear what you're admitting to, if anything. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- To be entirely honest, this seems less a not-quite-apology for having used multiple accounts, and more a not-quite-apology for having been caught using multiple accounts, especially due to - calling a spade a spade - the outright lying about it at the SPI page and in the previous unblock request. Secondly, this doesn't address at all the fairly clear behavioral evidence that neither of these accounts is the user's first rodeo on Wikipedia, instead very strongly inferring a connection to User:TelGonzie. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- TBH I edited my original post a few times, which referred to my ongoing suspicion of AI-use (something that's also inferred to be correct but not admitted). AI will apologise for everything whilst admitting to nothing.
- Every time I look at the behaviour of these accounts, it gets harder to believe they're not sock/meatpuppets.
- Articles with no movement for two years suddenly get editors who have the same POV & write in exactly the same way (to the point that AI appears likely) within a matter of days. Then the accounts all display laser-focus on the same subjects, along with multiple other behavioural clues? That's highly suspicious and I don't even have CU-glasses.
- I'm open to being proven wrong on this, I'm just not expecting it to happen. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- You’re right I’m sorry. I understand why my earlier statements created serious concerns and I accept responsibility for that. I should not have denied having edited with another account, and I apologize for that lack of transparency. I wanted to help my tribe but I instead it backfired. I can only repeat that I am not TelGonzie and have not coordinated with that user. I don’t honestly know that person. Even with that, I do recognize that my behavior has understandably damaged trust. If I am allowed to edit again, I am willing to abide strictly by WP:SOCK and WP:COI, avoid using any other accounts, and confine myself to talk‑page suggestions based on independent reliable sources, following WP:NPOV and WP:V. Obzidiann (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- I corrected my second appeal to unblock my account. I hope you accept my apology. I will do better. Obzidiann (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I’ve updated my second unblock request to admit what I did wrong and to correct the record. I am genuinely trying to make amends, and I respectfully ask for another chance to do better. Obzidiann (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Given you previously were not truthful when claiming to not be operating CU confirmed multiple accounts, why should we trust you when you say
I am not TelGonzie
when your behavior loudly proclaims that you are? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)- Well, youre right to question that. I dont blame you doubting me. I understand that I damaged my credibility, and I know that makes my words carry less weight right now.
- I don’t expect trust to be given back based on what I say here. The only way I could rebuild it would be through consistent, policy-compliant editing over time, if I’m allowed to return.
- I understand that the decision is yours, and I respect that. I really am sorry. Obzidiann (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) There's a third option - the Standard offer.
- You need to stay away from Wikipedia entirely for at least six months, which means no editing under any account (including temporary ones). This will show admins that you've got enough restraint to stay away and refrain from any further sockpuppetry.
- You're free to edit another project (list here) in the meantime, especially since evidence of problem-free editing elsewhere can significantly bolster any future appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. I’m still a newbie. I appreciate your advice. Obzidiann (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Given you previously were not truthful when claiming to not be operating CU confirmed multiple accounts, why should we trust you when you say
Blocked as a sockpuppet
edit
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.