User talk:Tech Bytez

Hello, I'm Barry Wom. A comment that you recently posted to Talk:Melania (film) seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Editors should not use LLMs to write comments generatively. Communication is at the root of Wikipedia's decision-making process, and it is presumed that editors possess the ability to come up with their own ideas. Your comment may have been collapsed per the relevant guideline. 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. Barry Wom (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to unconstructively edit Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at Talk:Melania, you may be blocked from editing. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite. I want to clarify one point for the record.

The post was written by me and not generated by a large language model. I did not use an LLM to draft it and already replied / commented about this on the relevant article talk page.

I understand the concern about length on talk pages, and I’ll keep future discussion posts concise and conversational. The length reflected a single reply to multiple users.

Hope this clarified things.

Thank you. Tech Bytez (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It was quite clearly an LLM-generated comment. Not much point in lying about it. Barry Wom (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Barry Wom, I’ve already addressed this truthfully. Continuing to repeat the accusation without evidence is not productive. If you believe there is a policy or conduct issue, please raise it at the appropriate noticeboard with specific diffs for review by an uninvolved administrator. My earlier post appears to have been flagged based on the length and timing of my reply. I have acknowledged that concern and will keep future comments concise. I won’t continue this discussion here. Further posts on my talk page repeating this allegation may be removed as repetitive, with an edit summary noting that. Tech Bytez (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you post comments on Wikipedia generated using a large language model. Using an LLM to generate a response to a warning about using an LLM wasn't the smartest of moves. Barry Wom (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. BusterD (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, I've blocked this account for 31 hours because of this LLM-created edit minutes ago AFTER they've gotten the final warning from Barry Wom above. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concerns that led to this block and I respect your authority to apply it. I will adjust my communication to better fit the informal writing style expected on this platform so that my comments aren't mistaken as LLM-generated in the future. Tech Bytez (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for clearly being not compatible with a collaborartive project, including using clearly LLM-generated comments repeatedly to respond to concerns about LLM useage. Note also that while it IS permitted to remove almost any content from your user talk page, this looks very much like an attempt to evade scrutiny. Overall it is clear that your presence is disruptive enough to be a net drain on volunteer time.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the general concern regarding LLM use on this platform. I did not use one or other AI tool. I did not edit while blocked other than one brief reply regarding the block itself. I removed one comment from my talk page because it was accusatory and not constructive, and I understand how that can be viewed negatively under the circumstances. Going forward, I will keep talk-page comments concise and focused. I respectfully request that the block be lifted or reduced. [edit] Additionally, I ran that last talk-page comment through several public AI detectors (Grammarly, GPTZero, Free AI Detector, QuillBot, and Scribbr). The scores were 0%, 0%, 15%, 23%, and 28.24% AI, respectively. I know these tools are imperfect, but I mention this only to respond to an earlier non-administrator comment that relied on AI-detector results. Separately, the ANI report I filed, though not at issue was admittedly incomplete and regimented, but modified and corrected shortly afterward (as notated in the summary edit). I filed it in an attempt to address repeated accusations about my editing, not to escalate the dispute. I should have waited until it was finalized and accurate before publishing it, but I was trying to respond quickly to the situation. Thank you. :Tech Bytez (talk) 1:30 am, 2 February 2026, Monday (15 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I do not find this explanation persuasive in light of the content of . If it's not an LLM, then it's a question of competence, as any editor should have been able to see that this request was deficient and why. At this point, I think your most likely route back to editing is a standard offer of coming back in several months, preferably having contributed positively to another Wikimedia project in the meantime. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 16 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.

ᒻ Noted. The shift in reasoning from an unproven LLM claim to a “question of competence” suggests a search for a justification rather than a neutral review. The ANI report was quickly corrected, notated, and the relevant diffs added. I will not be making future unblock requests. I’d rather stay grounded in reality than offer a false confession just to regain editing privileges. _{respectfully,} TechBytez ^{^talk 02:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)}

(Non-administrator comment) Hi again, I'm sorry if you felt that my last post was accusatory, however I made sure to justify my reasoning and give an explanation of how I reached my decision. If you choose to remove this response also (or just ask me), I will not post on your Talk page again.

I'm genuinely trying to help you as I don't think your current appeal will be successful - check out my Talk page if you're unsure of my history and motivation.

If you've been using AI/LLM/chatbots then all you need to do is admit it and promise not to use them going forwards.

Doubling down on denial when we're all very familiar with how they function isn't going to get you unblocked - you could even lose access to this Talk page for making frivolous appeals.

I would please like you to confirm whether you have ever used AI, LLM, chatbot or text-generation tools of any sort at Wikipedia. I'm not the only editor who feels that you've been using AI/LLM/chatbots to write your responses, so this isn't a case of one or two people making unreasonable claims.

In particular, there's clear consensus that this post at ANI was machine generated. I've run it through several AI detectors and the lowest score I got was 65%.

We're fully aware of what AI-generated ANI reports look like; it happens regularly and they follow a set pattern which we saw in your case. It would also explain the sections marked "DIFF" on your original post, where it appears that you were supposed to replace the generated text with diff links before copying it over to ANI. I'm unsure how this could have happened otherwise.

As I've said above, feel free to delete this or let me know if you don't want me to post here again. I will respect your decision.

I wanted to reach out one more time to implore you to please be honest about whether you've used any AI/LLM/chatbots or other machine generation (translation services also frequently use AI).

If you have, admitting to it is the first step to a fresh start and a possible unblock. Everyone screws up, what's important is how we deal with our mistakes. I wish you well. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles