User talk:MTLNORG

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am writing this to appeal my block. I realize now that my use of tools like Grammarly for professional syntax created a structured appearance that mimics LLM-generated content, which led to this block even after I stated I was restating my proposal manually. Maybe I have utilized this apps that i sound like them.

As a professional in the tech industry, I use many tools for reporting and I did not intend to deceive. My only goal for the Talk:Mount Kenya region talk page was to correct discrepancies in good faith based on the KNBS data and UNESCO mapping and resolve the documented sockpuppet corruption. I acknowledge Newslinger's findings regarding the DRN Archive red link; I realize now that using a tool to organize my manual research caused it to 'hallucinate' that link, which was a procedural error on my part.

I still apologize for how my formatting choices appeared. I am still learning Wikipedia's standards so I understand. I only used a tool to check my grammar and proofread my sentences but I did not realize that using these tools for professional polish would get me flagged as AI-generated. (quite unfortunate) but this tools help in solving spelling errors, this also includes unassisted typing for all future contributions to avoid any further confusion. I respectfully ask for a second chance to contribute my data expertise as a human editor.

Additional Clarification (March 6, 10pm MT)

I waited about a week before I added this additional information to show my respect to the administrative process and to add more details as I reflected during the time I was blocked.

I have noticed that my professional background may be hindering my valuable efforts to your platform, specifically how I am used to conducting my duties, I am trained and expected to produce highly structured (nearly perfect documentation) and I realize now that this introduces some styles to the Wikipedia that is slightly too polished from the average user, in combination with tools such as Grammarly which I already statated above, which is helpful to me not just polishing my compositions but my premium plan comes with additional features such as plagiarism detection. I hope the community understands that using this application to rewrite helps in clarity. My particular case with it has helped me scan text against academic databases. It also helped me in formating in combination with applications that comes with Microsoft 365

I now understand newslinger`s findings here, which at the time, my filing wasn`t included in the DRN archives, since it was still early after it abruptly was closed by Robert McClenon on 28th February. I notice now that was my manual error on my part where I tried to predict a URL path for a case that hadn`t been archived yet. I see now that copy-pasting my polished text from external apps likely carried hidden formatting that triggered Newsliger`s tools. To fix this, I am now planning moving forwad to manually check the links and future entries and instert all URLs myself, this is a mistake on my part. While I am a new editor on wikipedia, I will continue to learn from my mistakes for the better. I am an experienced tech professional so don`t confuse my lenght to the platform as someone who doesn`t know how to perform source code edits. Mistakes can happen, this is where I am planning to ensure my future contributions doesnt get seen as disruptive.

Though I want to address the claims of disruption, hope I am not boring you with too much information, I think this is necessary for context.

My goal about the Mount Kenya talk page was to maintain structural integrity of the article. I moved to the DRN because I believed a mediated space was better than a stagnant 3-0 process of counting memebership county of a geographic region that conflated different topics that explained why the split was needed (Evidence). This is the gov source for the 10-ecominc bloc. On my last proposal, I asked the community to provide feedback about my sandbox drafts in hopes to get their assitance to fix anything on it before it goes to the mainspace so that we can restore the article to the the geographic region and keep the membership framework in its own separate home. I also remember mentioning that I was not here to win an argument, so I can see why I was viewed as sealioning.

While I was blocked, MWFwiki has been making major changes to the article such as the demographics to hard-code the population figures. He even deleted a tag by saying "bad-standing editor" which feels like he is judging the editor rather than the verifiability of the data. I also noticed he/she pledging to watch the article page on behalf of a banned sockpuppet, which makes me question the neutrality of the previous consensus. Even after Newslinger warned the banned user that other editors are not allowed to make edits on their behalf. During my auditing, I also noticed a questionable image here that may be tied to sockpuppet user with only two edits included in the article.

I am prepared to accept sanctions to the specific article if you still believe my contributions were disruptive, I did provide the government audited data and also it was clear there was no objection to my recommendation to revert to the Kenyan shillings when referring to the GDP or GCP as reflected on the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS VOL 1). I aim to provide value to Wikipedia in other areas, you can rest assured that I have learned that being right on data doesn`t mean I can ignore how the community reaches consensus. I made a sincere effort that is why I utilized the available resources.

Status Inquiry (March 14)

Hi there, this update is for administrative purposes. Its been officially two weeks since my initial block and I havent heard back. Though I want to acknowledge this is voluntary, so no rush I just wanted to follow up on my appeal. As mentioned in my clarification on March 6th, I continue to learn about the Wikipedia editing guidlines, especially by double-checking all the links I input instead of predicting paths - assuming they`d work, that was a huge mistake on my part.

I`ve also been reading up on why Wikipedia discourages editors from using LLMs. I get why anything that sounds like it has been utilized gets flagged and honestly, since I care alot about making sure my sources are solid, this makes total sense to me. I am now more aware of the flaws of any software that incorporates AI tools. Though I think Wikipedia should maybe consider that sometimes sounding too polished (I get this might be frowned upon) can come from professional work experience and this is just how we sound. Yes! Work habits sometimes just transfer this behavior. Some old discussions on the talk page got collapsed just minutes before I was blocked, which to me feels like admin overreach. Though I think that is a conduct matter that can be reevaluated later. MTLNORG (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am writing this to appeal my block. I realize now that my use of tools like [[Grammarly]] for professional syntax created a structured appearance that mimics [[Large language model|LLM-generated content]], which led to this block even after I stated I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1340931365 restating] my proposal manually. Maybe I have utilized this apps that i sound like them.

As a professional in the [[tech industry]], I use many tools for reporting and I did not intend to deceive. My only goal for the [[Talk:Mount Kenya region]] talk page was to correct discrepancies in good faith based on the [[Kenya National Bureau of Statistics|KNBS data]] and [https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/800/maps/ UNESCO mapping] and resolve [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1310539713 the documented] [[sockpuppet]] corruption. I acknowledge [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger's]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1340931365 findings] regarding the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1340868668 DRN Archive] red link; I realize now that using a tool to organize my manual research caused it to 'hallucinate' that link, which was a procedural error on my part.

I still apologize for how my formatting choices appeared. I am still learning Wikipedia's standards so I understand. I only used a tool to check my [[grammar]] and [[Proofreading|proofread]] my sentences but I did not realize that using these tools for professional polish would get me flagged as AI-generated. (quite unfortunate) but this tools help in solving spelling errors, this also includes unassisted typing for all future contributions to avoid any further confusion. I respectfully ask for a second chance to contribute my [[Research|data expertise]] as a human editor.

'''Additional Clarification (March 6, 10pm MT)''' 

''I waited about a week before I added this additional information to show my respect to the administrative process and to add more details as I reflected during the time I was blocked.'' 

I have noticed that my professional background may be hindering my valuable efforts to your platform, specifically how I am used to conducting my duties, I am trained and expected to produce highly structured (nearly perfect documentation) and I realize now that this introduces some styles to the Wikipedia that is slightly too polished from the average user, in combination with tools such as Grammarly which I already statated above, which is helpful to me not just polishing my compositions but my premium plan comes with additional features such as plagiarism detection. I hope the community understands that using this application to rewrite helps in clarity. My particular case with it has helped me scan text against academic databases. It also helped me in formating in combination with applications that comes with [[Microsoft 365]] 

I now understand newslinger`s findings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount%20Kenya%20region&diff=prev&oldid=1340959256 here], which at the time, my filing wasn`t included in the DRN archives, since it was still early after it abruptly was closed by Robert McClenon on 28th February. I notice now that was my manual error on my part where I tried to predict a URL path for a case that hadn`t been archived yet. I see now that copy-pasting my polished text from external apps likely carried hidden formatting that triggered Newsliger`s tools. To fix this, I am now planning moving forwad to manually check the links and future entries and instert all URLs myself, this is a mistake on my part. While I am a new editor on wikipedia, I will continue to learn from my mistakes for the better. I am an experienced tech professional so don`t confuse my lenght to the platform as someone who doesn`t know how to perform source code edits. Mistakes can happen, this is where I am planning to ensure my future contributions doesnt get seen as disruptive.

''Though I want  to address the claims of disruption, hope I am not boring you with too much information, I think this is necessary for context.''

My goal about the Mount Kenya talk page was to maintain structural integrity of the article. I moved to the DRN because I believed a mediated space was better than a stagnant 3-0 process of counting memebership county of a geographic region that conflated different topics that explained why the split was needed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount%20Kenya%20region&diff=prev&oldid=1339360026 Evidence]). This is the [https://www.igrtc.go.ke/sites/default/files/2024-10/Regional%20Economic%20Blocs%20in%20Kenya.pdf gov source] for the 10-ecominc bloc. On my last proposal, I asked the community to provide feedback about my sandbox drafts in hopes to get their assitance to fix anything on it before it goes to the mainspace so that we can restore the article to the the geographic region and keep the membership framework in its own separate home. I also remember mentioning that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1339189553 I was not here to win] an argument, so I can see why I was viewed as sealioning. 

While I was blocked, MWFwiki has been making major changes to the article such as the demographics to hard-code the population figures. He even deleted a tag by saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount%20Kenya%20region&diff=prev&oldid=1341917519 "bad-standing editor"] which feels like he is judging the editor rather than the verifiability of the data. I also noticed he/she [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anyrmson&diff=prev&oldid=1340972813 pledging to watch the article page] on behalf of a banned sockpuppet, which makes me question the neutrality of the previous consensus. Even after Newslinger [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Anyrmson&diff=prev&oldid=1340919622 warned] the banned user that other editors are not allowed to make edits on their behalf. During my auditing, I also noticed a questionable [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map%20of%20Mount%20Kenya%20Region.png image here] that may be tied to sockpuppet user with only two edits included in the article.

I am prepared to accept sanctions to the specific article if you still believe my contributions were disruptive, I did provide the government audited data and also it was clear there was no objection to my recommendation to revert to the Kenyan shillings when referring to the GDP or GCP as reflected on the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics [https://www.knbs.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2019-Kenya-population-and-Housing-Census-Volume-1-Population-By-County-And-Sub-County.pdf (KNBS VOL 1)]. I aim to provide value to Wikipedia in other areas, you can rest assured that I have learned that being right on data doesn`t mean I can ignore how the community reaches consensus. I made a sincere effort that is why I utilized the available resources.


'''Status Inquiry (March 14)'''

Hi there, this update is for administrative purposes. Its been officially two weeks since my initial block and I havent heard back. Though I want to acknowledge this is voluntary, so no rush I just wanted to follow up on my appeal. As mentioned in my clarification on March 6th, I continue to learn about the Wikipedia editing guidlines, especially by double-checking all the links I input instead of predicting paths - assuming they`d work, that was a huge mistake on my part.

I`ve also been reading up on why Wikipedia discourages editors from using LLMs. I get why anything that sounds like it has been utilized gets flagged and honestly, since I care alot about making sure my sources are solid, this makes total sense to me. I am now more aware of the flaws of any software that incorporates AI tools. Though I think Wikipedia should maybe consider that sometimes sounding too polished (I get this might be frowned upon) can come from professional work experience and this is just how we sound. Yes! Work habits sometimes just transfer this behavior. Some old discussions on the talk page got collapsed just minutes before I was blocked, which to me feels like admin overreach. ''Though I think that is a conduct matter that can be reevaluated later.'' [[User:MTLNORG|MTLNORG]] ([[User talk:MTLNORG#top|talk]]) 02:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am writing this to appeal my block. I realize now that my use of tools like [[Grammarly]] for professional syntax created a structured appearance that mimics [[Large language model|LLM-generated content]], which led to this block even after I stated I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1340931365 restating] my proposal manually. Maybe I have utilized this apps that i sound like them.

As a professional in the [[tech industry]], I use many tools for reporting and I did not intend to deceive. My only goal for the [[Talk:Mount Kenya region]] talk page was to correct discrepancies in good faith based on the [[Kenya National Bureau of Statistics|KNBS data]] and [https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/800/maps/ UNESCO mapping] and resolve [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1310539713 the documented] [[sockpuppet]] corruption. I acknowledge [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger's]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1340931365 findings] regarding the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1340868668 DRN Archive] red link; I realize now that using a tool to organize my manual research caused it to 'hallucinate' that link, which was a procedural error on my part.

I still apologize for how my formatting choices appeared. I am still learning Wikipedia's standards so I understand. I only used a tool to check my [[grammar]] and [[Proofreading|proofread]] my sentences but I did not realize that using these tools for professional polish would get me flagged as AI-generated. (quite unfortunate) but this tools help in solving spelling errors, this also includes unassisted typing for all future contributions to avoid any further confusion. I respectfully ask for a second chance to contribute my [[Research|data expertise]] as a human editor.

'''Additional Clarification (March 6, 10pm MT)''' 

''I waited about a week before I added this additional information to show my respect to the administrative process and to add more details as I reflected during the time I was blocked.'' 

I have noticed that my professional background may be hindering my valuable efforts to your platform, specifically how I am used to conducting my duties, I am trained and expected to produce highly structured (nearly perfect documentation) and I realize now that this introduces some styles to the Wikipedia that is slightly too polished from the average user, in combination with tools such as Grammarly which I already statated above, which is helpful to me not just polishing my compositions but my premium plan comes with additional features such as plagiarism detection. I hope the community understands that using this application to rewrite helps in clarity. My particular case with it has helped me scan text against academic databases. It also helped me in formating in combination with applications that comes with [[Microsoft 365]] 

I now understand newslinger`s findings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount%20Kenya%20region&diff=prev&oldid=1340959256 here], which at the time, my filing wasn`t included in the DRN archives, since it was still early after it abruptly was closed by Robert McClenon on 28th February. I notice now that was my manual error on my part where I tried to predict a URL path for a case that hadn`t been archived yet. I see now that copy-pasting my polished text from external apps likely carried hidden formatting that triggered Newsliger`s tools. To fix this, I am now planning moving forwad to manually check the links and future entries and instert all URLs myself, this is a mistake on my part. While I am a new editor on wikipedia, I will continue to learn from my mistakes for the better. I am an experienced tech professional so don`t confuse my lenght to the platform as someone who doesn`t know how to perform source code edits. Mistakes can happen, this is where I am planning to ensure my future contributions doesnt get seen as disruptive.

''Though I want  to address the claims of disruption, hope I am not boring you with too much information, I think this is necessary for context.''

My goal about the Mount Kenya talk page was to maintain structural integrity of the article. I moved to the DRN because I believed a mediated space was better than a stagnant 3-0 process of counting memebership county of a geographic region that conflated different topics that explained why the split was needed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount%20Kenya%20region&diff=prev&oldid=1339360026 Evidence]). This is the [https://www.igrtc.go.ke/sites/default/files/2024-10/Regional%20Economic%20Blocs%20in%20Kenya.pdf gov source] for the 10-ecominc bloc. On my last proposal, I asked the community to provide feedback about my sandbox drafts in hopes to get their assitance to fix anything on it before it goes to the mainspace so that we can restore the article to the the geographic region and keep the membership framework in its own separate home. I also remember mentioning that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1339189553 I was not here to win] an argument, so I can see why I was viewed as sealioning. 

While I was blocked, MWFwiki has been making major changes to the article such as the demographics to hard-code the population figures. He even deleted a tag by saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount%20Kenya%20region&diff=prev&oldid=1341917519 "bad-standing editor"] which feels like he is judging the editor rather than the verifiability of the data. I also noticed he/she [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anyrmson&diff=prev&oldid=1340972813 pledging to watch the article page] on behalf of a banned sockpuppet, which makes me question the neutrality of the previous consensus. Even after Newslinger [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Anyrmson&diff=prev&oldid=1340919622 warned] the banned user that other editors are not allowed to make edits on their behalf. During my auditing, I also noticed a questionable [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map%20of%20Mount%20Kenya%20Region.png image here] that may be tied to sockpuppet user with only two edits included in the article.

I am prepared to accept sanctions to the specific article if you still believe my contributions were disruptive, I did provide the government audited data and also it was clear there was no objection to my recommendation to revert to the Kenyan shillings when referring to the GDP or GCP as reflected on the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics [https://www.knbs.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2019-Kenya-population-and-Housing-Census-Volume-1-Population-By-County-And-Sub-County.pdf (KNBS VOL 1)]. I aim to provide value to Wikipedia in other areas, you can rest assured that I have learned that being right on data doesn`t mean I can ignore how the community reaches consensus. I made a sincere effort that is why I utilized the available resources.


'''Status Inquiry (March 14)'''

Hi there, this update is for administrative purposes. Its been officially two weeks since my initial block and I havent heard back. Though I want to acknowledge this is voluntary, so no rush I just wanted to follow up on my appeal. As mentioned in my clarification on March 6th, I continue to learn about the Wikipedia editing guidlines, especially by double-checking all the links I input instead of predicting paths - assuming they`d work, that was a huge mistake on my part.

I`ve also been reading up on why Wikipedia discourages editors from using LLMs. I get why anything that sounds like it has been utilized gets flagged and honestly, since I care alot about making sure my sources are solid, this makes total sense to me. I am now more aware of the flaws of any software that incorporates AI tools. Though I think Wikipedia should maybe consider that sometimes sounding too polished (I get this might be frowned upon) can come from professional work experience and this is just how we sound. Yes! Work habits sometimes just transfer this behavior. Some old discussions on the talk page got collapsed just minutes before I was blocked, which to me feels like admin overreach. ''Though I think that is a conduct matter that can be reevaluated later.'' [[User:MTLNORG|MTLNORG]] ([[User talk:MTLNORG#top|talk]]) 02:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am writing this to appeal my block. I realize now that my use of tools like [[Grammarly]] for professional syntax created a structured appearance that mimics [[Large language model|LLM-generated content]], which led to this block even after I stated I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1340931365 restating] my proposal manually. Maybe I have utilized this apps that i sound like them.

As a professional in the [[tech industry]], I use many tools for reporting and I did not intend to deceive. My only goal for the [[Talk:Mount Kenya region]] talk page was to correct discrepancies in good faith based on the [[Kenya National Bureau of Statistics|KNBS data]] and [https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/800/maps/ UNESCO mapping] and resolve [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1310539713 the documented] [[sockpuppet]] corruption. I acknowledge [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger's]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1340931365 findings] regarding the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1340868668 DRN Archive] red link; I realize now that using a tool to organize my manual research caused it to 'hallucinate' that link, which was a procedural error on my part.

I still apologize for how my formatting choices appeared. I am still learning Wikipedia's standards so I understand. I only used a tool to check my [[grammar]] and [[Proofreading|proofread]] my sentences but I did not realize that using these tools for professional polish would get me flagged as AI-generated. (quite unfortunate) but this tools help in solving spelling errors, this also includes unassisted typing for all future contributions to avoid any further confusion. I respectfully ask for a second chance to contribute my [[Research|data expertise]] as a human editor.

'''Additional Clarification (March 6, 10pm MT)''' 

''I waited about a week before I added this additional information to show my respect to the administrative process and to add more details as I reflected during the time I was blocked.'' 

I have noticed that my professional background may be hindering my valuable efforts to your platform, specifically how I am used to conducting my duties, I am trained and expected to produce highly structured (nearly perfect documentation) and I realize now that this introduces some styles to the Wikipedia that is slightly too polished from the average user, in combination with tools such as Grammarly which I already statated above, which is helpful to me not just polishing my compositions but my premium plan comes with additional features such as plagiarism detection. I hope the community understands that using this application to rewrite helps in clarity. My particular case with it has helped me scan text against academic databases. It also helped me in formating in combination with applications that comes with [[Microsoft 365]] 

I now understand newslinger`s findings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount%20Kenya%20region&diff=prev&oldid=1340959256 here], which at the time, my filing wasn`t included in the DRN archives, since it was still early after it abruptly was closed by Robert McClenon on 28th February. I notice now that was my manual error on my part where I tried to predict a URL path for a case that hadn`t been archived yet. I see now that copy-pasting my polished text from external apps likely carried hidden formatting that triggered Newsliger`s tools. To fix this, I am now planning moving forwad to manually check the links and future entries and instert all URLs myself, this is a mistake on my part. While I am a new editor on wikipedia, I will continue to learn from my mistakes for the better. I am an experienced tech professional so don`t confuse my lenght to the platform as someone who doesn`t know how to perform source code edits. Mistakes can happen, this is where I am planning to ensure my future contributions doesnt get seen as disruptive.

''Though I want  to address the claims of disruption, hope I am not boring you with too much information, I think this is necessary for context.''

My goal about the Mount Kenya talk page was to maintain structural integrity of the article. I moved to the DRN because I believed a mediated space was better than a stagnant 3-0 process of counting memebership county of a geographic region that conflated different topics that explained why the split was needed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount%20Kenya%20region&diff=prev&oldid=1339360026 Evidence]). This is the [https://www.igrtc.go.ke/sites/default/files/2024-10/Regional%20Economic%20Blocs%20in%20Kenya.pdf gov source] for the 10-ecominc bloc. On my last proposal, I asked the community to provide feedback about my sandbox drafts in hopes to get their assitance to fix anything on it before it goes to the mainspace so that we can restore the article to the the geographic region and keep the membership framework in its own separate home. I also remember mentioning that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Kenya_region&diff=prev&oldid=1339189553 I was not here to win] an argument, so I can see why I was viewed as sealioning. 

While I was blocked, MWFwiki has been making major changes to the article such as the demographics to hard-code the population figures. He even deleted a tag by saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount%20Kenya%20region&diff=prev&oldid=1341917519 "bad-standing editor"] which feels like he is judging the editor rather than the verifiability of the data. I also noticed he/she [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anyrmson&diff=prev&oldid=1340972813 pledging to watch the article page] on behalf of a banned sockpuppet, which makes me question the neutrality of the previous consensus. Even after Newslinger [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Anyrmson&diff=prev&oldid=1340919622 warned] the banned user that other editors are not allowed to make edits on their behalf. During my auditing, I also noticed a questionable [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map%20of%20Mount%20Kenya%20Region.png image here] that may be tied to sockpuppet user with only two edits included in the article.

I am prepared to accept sanctions to the specific article if you still believe my contributions were disruptive, I did provide the government audited data and also it was clear there was no objection to my recommendation to revert to the Kenyan shillings when referring to the GDP or GCP as reflected on the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics [https://www.knbs.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2019-Kenya-population-and-Housing-Census-Volume-1-Population-By-County-And-Sub-County.pdf (KNBS VOL 1)]. I aim to provide value to Wikipedia in other areas, you can rest assured that I have learned that being right on data doesn`t mean I can ignore how the community reaches consensus. I made a sincere effort that is why I utilized the available resources.


'''Status Inquiry (March 14)'''

Hi there, this update is for administrative purposes. Its been officially two weeks since my initial block and I havent heard back. Though I want to acknowledge this is voluntary, so no rush I just wanted to follow up on my appeal. As mentioned in my clarification on March 6th, I continue to learn about the Wikipedia editing guidlines, especially by double-checking all the links I input instead of predicting paths - assuming they`d work, that was a huge mistake on my part.

I`ve also been reading up on why Wikipedia discourages editors from using LLMs. I get why anything that sounds like it has been utilized gets flagged and honestly, since I care alot about making sure my sources are solid, this makes total sense to me. I am now more aware of the flaws of any software that incorporates AI tools. Though I think Wikipedia should maybe consider that sometimes sounding too polished (I get this might be frowned upon) can come from professional work experience and this is just how we sound. Yes! Work habits sometimes just transfer this behavior. Some old discussions on the talk page got collapsed just minutes before I was blocked, which to me feels like admin overreach. ''Though I think that is a conduct matter that can be reevaluated later.'' [[User:MTLNORG|MTLNORG]] ([[User talk:MTLNORG#top|talk]]) 02:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

MTLNORG (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Your behavioral issues go beyond use of LLMs (which I'm still unclear whether you're denying their use or admitting to their use; you seem to have done both in the above-statement). Sans this block, I would've very likely been taking you to ANI today for sealion-ing (starting the 3-O process, then abandoning it when you realized I was not inclined to agree with you, going to DRN, and then opening multiple split discussions), incessant LLM use (even these two drafts are clearly heavily-LLM generated), and blatant misapplication of WP:SILENCE (twice, actually), as well as your attempt to "ignore" or invalidate my "oppose" opinion on your split proposal by opening new split discussions and not acknowledging my previous opinion (nor even courtesy tagging me).

Your demand that: "Primary sourced refutations needed when objecting" is highly inappropriate. Editors may opine that they oppose a proposal for any reason they wish within policy, as long as they can defend their reasoning. Further, I would like to read the policy that states "primary sources are required in order to object [to a split]", please; If you could link that, I would appreciate it. You have demonstrated with these statements that you do not understand how WP:CONSENSUS in discussions work. You do not get to unilaterally decide what happens within a discussion. The community gets to decide, guided by and within the bounds of policy. If there is no consensus, no changes are made. This is especially important as you are currently restricted from editing Mount Kenya region without discussion and consensus, anyways.

You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and our guiding principles, particularly WP:PRIMARY versus WP:SECONDARY and what our role as editors are vis a vis WP:RELIABLESOURCES. You have demonstrated a marked misunderstanding of WP:ONUS. You demonstrated that you haven't even taken the time to read the guidelines on appealing a block (see rule "1" of WP:NOTTHEM) or have done so and decided to ignore them in mentioning Anyrmson's socking. Frankly, I'm not even clear as to what their socking has had to do with this dispute, although I acknowledge that perhaps I'm missing something.

I began my interactions with you as the Third Opinion volunteer looking to settle the dispute between you and Anyrmson. I have stated multiple times throughout my interactions with you that I felt that you were acting in good-faith. I am now questioning those statements, frankly and unfortunately. I still believe that you are here to create a better encyclopedia but I am concerned that you have become preoccupied with "winning" a dispute over following Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

That said, I was not planning on requesting an indefinite block, merely a short-term article or topic ban and perhaps some other light sanctions. I am not disputing nor questioning Administrator Newslinger's decision to indefinitely block you, and I obviously defer to their judgement and authority. However, I would not have spent so much time typing all of this out if I didn't feel you had anything to offer Wikipedia. You do have something to offer, in my opinion, and assuming you can acknowledge and "fix" the issues outlined above.

I, for one, would not be opposed to some sort of reduction of your block or perhaps placing you on WP:PROBATION with a topic/subject ban or similar restrictions. However, I believe some form of sanction should remain. If the indefinite block is upheld, I strongly urge you to take some time, learn a bit more about how Wikipedia works, and take the WP:STANDARDOFFER. — MWFwiki (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

With MTLNORG's latest addendum to their appeal, I must unfortunately withdraw my support for lessening of their sanctions. They still have not read WP:NOTTHEM (or have and have chosen to ignore it). They have now made several personal attacks against me and did not tag me. They continue to conflate content issues with their behavioral issues, continuing to argue content within their appeal and their addendum. They still do not understand how sourcing works on Wikipedia; Indeed, I'm still waiting on that policy which explains that primary sources are required to object to a split proposal.

MTLNORG, you are an editor in bad-standing. Saying that you are is not a violation of anything. Further, my assurance to Anyrmson that I would keep an eye on the page you two were edit-warring over was an expressed purely out of my own interest for the article; I made this assurance with full expectation that an administrator would see it. I have nothing to hide. You have made personal attacks and accusations against me in this addendum. You attacking the only editor that has expressed support for you is, frankly, quite baffling, and I, as I said, must withdraw any support for reduction of your sanctions. — MWFwiki (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

User talk:MTLNORG

A warm welcome to you!

Disambiguated links

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

February 2026

Appeal of Indefinite Block (False Positive LLM Identification)

Related Articles