User talk:WindsorMaster47

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. MightyRanger (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@MightyRanger Hey! I responded here and in my comment on top of the page. Here . Where else do you want me to respond? I think I have explained everything. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You should explain why you're promoting this company and its founders, and ignoring the advice of other editors. MightyRanger (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@MightyRanger Can you please show me what advice of what other editors did I ignore? Correct me if I am wrong, but making a neutral page about something does not mean promoting. Feel free to let me know what promotional did I write. I tried to make sure all is encyclopedic. I put information together about highly discussed topic of some great researches that spoke at an event at CMU, a topic the about the community I am part of is talking about a lot. I work on robotic research myself.

I am very interested to meet the team at some event in the future, if I get an invite, and made page about the project and it's authors. I did not add any personal info about the 2 people, because I do not know anything personal. There are 2 more people on the project, who have less citations. I did not make the page about them, after having discussion about this here a few days ago. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@MightyRanger I also made a note here on the talk page of the article, before submitting it, on Feb 4. Nobody told me I was prohibited to move a page. I do not think I can find one sentence that reads as promo. All is very basic. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. I could not find a company logo to add. There is nothing with free license online. I wish to move my draft back to mainspace and just log out, knowing that it does not disappear. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You should not move the pages into mainspace until this is resolved. MightyRanger (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@MightyRanger I am sorry if this is a stupid question, but what must be resolved? I tried to make all 3 pages look good and used only reliable sources, so they should not require additional work. I also copied templates for company from well established Wikipedia pages, like as Nvidia. I was actually planning on coming up to the professors, if I get the chance to attend a closed event, and telling them that I made Wikipedia pages about them and showing it to them. It is very hard to connect with scholars of their level. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

If you are hoping to impress those individuals personally, that is a WP:conflict of interest and you should stop. It seems that you are intent on creating pages for non-notable topics, despite advice to stop. Draft:Skild AI also strongly resembles LLM-speak. MightyRanger (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@MightyRanger one more small note. I also do not have an intent on creating pages for non-notable topics. I did not receive the advice to stop. I mentioned it here. It looks like it took you under 3 minutes to move my pages to draft, make a notice on my talk, make notice on the board, decide that 3 pages are not notable, and make an assumption that I intend to make articles about non-notable topics.WindsorMaster47 (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Migthy! I think issues is resolved. There is no vandalism or promotion in my edits, all is and non controvestial. I also do not see anything that would prohibit me to simply move the page and forget about it. I think topic benefits community and has public interest. Take care!

It says that the board below (and I do not think it is the case) : should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to make this point clear in bold, I read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and according to it, I do not have any COI. I made an article about a stranger I do not know, even if I would like to meet him in the future, is not a conflict of interest under Wikipedia rules. It explicitly says that beliefs, interests, admiration, curiosity, or aspirations do not constitute COI. COI is about roles and relationships, not motivation.

Absolutely all edits are factual, properly sourced and formatted, neutral, and non-controversial. I do not appreciate baseless accusations simply because I want to create an article on a particular topic. All my information is from public sources. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to identify specific edits that are personal, promotional or unsourced. I put good effort into creating a decent article. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

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 ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I was having a conversation with another editor. I do not remember having a conversation with you. Why did you came to my page and blocked me? Editing is allowed, and I virtually had conversation with other people and not you. Do you have any specific problems with my page or my edits? WindsorMaster47 (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

And I find the note you made rather ridiculous. "with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia)". is that your personal opinion or do you have any personal issues with my topic and its notability? You are free to participate in the discussion and evaluate it and not make hostile comments like this. According to your logic , your contributions are worthy for encyclopedia and mine are not? WindsorMaster47 (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I am actually going to add editors I spoke to here. Sorry to bother you @DoubleGrazing, @Anachronist. I was minding my own business, having conversation with you and then a random third party comes to me and lives messages like this, out of the blue. I never had any kind of interaction with this individual. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you pinged me, but now that I'm here... FWIW, I wasn't convinced by your explanations, either here on you talk page or on the COI noticeboard, and it seems to me you're here for reasons other than to help us build an encyclopaedia. I wasn't going to block you myself, though, because I've already had dealings with you which may be enough to make me 'involved'. Daniel Case, on the other hand, is entirely uninvolved – or what you call "a random third party" – and can therefore assess the situation objectively. Their assessment has led them to block you, which I for one don't disagree with. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Why did you came to my page and blocked me?: Short version: Because I'm an administrator and I can. Slightly longer version: Because someone requested page protection and when I reviewed the article history, the problem was you.
• Do you have any specific problems with my page or my edits?. It's clear from them that the only reason you started your account is to create articles about Skild AI and its creators. That's not "building an encyclopedia". And it additionally seems to me from your language and apparently genuine bewilderment over why you have gotten the reaction you have is due to what we call competence issues.

Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I think you should read the pages I created. I understand you point, but I disagree that this is not building an encyclopedia. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia about topics they feel knowledgeable about or strongly about. That is exactly what I did. I had never made contributions before, and I actually had a discussion on the creation board about whether I should make a page about Skild AI or the founders instead, as I was unsure about notability.

My articles are about prominent figures who are genuinely shaping the robotics industry, running robotics labs at Facebook , and Google brain. It is a big topic. I followed examples of good quality articles, copied a proper infobox, and looked for solid sources to complete the pages to the best of my ability. I did not include any crazy promotional content, unlike many drafts I saw on the pending list. Judging by what I saw, a lot of the pending drafts are poor promotional stuff about completely irrelevant subjects, so I understand you review many requests.

I consider my contribution as building an encyclopedia, as my goal was to make information about the topic available and easily accessible to everyone. I made the request below and explained my reaction to seeing someone I have never had any interaction with place a block on my page. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You say "Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia about topics they feel knowledgeable about or strongly about."

You just described a conflict of interest. It's hard to write in a neutral manner about a topic you feel strongly about, and because we report only what reliable sources report, knowledge about a subject isn't required and doesn't give you a stronger right to edit than anyone else.

"Anyone can contribute" is a slogan that is true only for the first edit anyone makes. After that, depending on behavior, the ability to contribute may be blocked. Indeed, having a COI limits how you can contribute. There are also some topics that are so contentious, they are restricted so that you cannot contribute, not even on the talk pages, until you've been here a good while.

Right now, for example, you are restricted to discussing your block, and nothing else: Not your article subjects, not their notability, not the pages you created, not what anybody else did or said, but only you and your behavior. That's what this block is about. Dwelling on anything else during your block can lead to your talk page access being revoked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist I think you misread my reply. What I meant is that someone with a science background is more likely to be interested in contributing to science related topics, just as someone with a literature background would feel more confident and knowledgeable working on literature or social science pages. For example, I doubt that someone with no background in biology could write a high quality article about a complex biological concept. That was my point.

I submitted the unblock request and did not discuss anything outside of that situation. I only replied to the editor’s note. I believe I explained everything clearly, and I do not think there is anything else that needs to be repeated. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Are you going to review my request? I think I explained the situation and my reaction. Let me know if you have any other questions. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The normal practice is for another administrator to review the block and the appeal. Daniel Case explained his reasoning after the block. That is now part of the record. Another administrator will review it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that it has to be the same person. But if I cannot write on the notice board, and the request is on my page, how are other administrators going to see it? I did not talk with any other administrators exempt of you and 2 more people. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Your unblock request is listed in the admins' feed where any patrolling admin will be able to see it and respond to it. We have currently a backlog of 70+ appeals, however, so this may take a while. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist @DoubleGrazing thanks for explaining! I will be waiting. and my apologies again to @Daniel Case, thinking he is randomly attacking people. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

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).

WindsorMaster47 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Your reason here I believe this block may have resulted from a miscommunication about my intent and editing process. I understand that my editing may have appeared narrowly focused, and I can see how that could raise concerns.

At the time, I was discussing coi issues on the talk page with another editor and was editing the article based on that feedback. On the day of the block, I made just 1 edit to the page and was otherwise not actively editing or engaging in any disputes.

I am still learning Wikipedia’s policies and norms. My intent was simply to edit in good faith, improve the article, and follow the guidance I was given.

My goal is to contribute constructively and in line with Wikipedia’s expectations. I was surprised to see a block message from a third-party person I never had any kind of interaction with.

I was having a regular discussion here, and people were giving me feedback, which I followed and made the edits they recommended. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#WindsorMaster47_and_Skild_AI

Thanks!

Decline reason:

I'm not sure if you actually have a COI or not- but I will say that you perhaps functionally have one in that you are so personally invested in this topic for whatever reason that its as if you have a COI. Passionate fans of a topic often appear to have a COI because their passion causes them to not hear what more experienced people tell them and edit with the appearance of promotion. I think it's very unlikely you will be unblocked to keep contrbuting about this AI and the people associated with it- at least, based on this. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 14 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.

WindsorMaster47 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry to see this. At this point, I urge you to read your block message and follow the linked advice to the letter if you want to be unblocked. I advise you to read the guide to appealing blocks and revise your appeal. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist I read the block message, and replied in this blue box. @Czarking0 left me a note, 3RRN, and I was not making any edits after that, like @Czarking0 suggested. You can see it above . I had a conversation with him later, and I just opened Wikipedia to check the AfD discussion and saw this message from a random person, completely out of the blue.

You can confirm that I spoke with you, was respectful, asked for feedback, and had no conversation with this third person. Even COI is allowed, and people edit pages about themselves. These is nothing crazy in my edits. I barely made 2 edits today in total. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I was actually wrong, I made 1 edit to the page today, not 2. It just crazy to me, to see such messages. I'd appreciate your help on this. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Your appeal doesn't suggest that you followed WP:Guide to appealing blocks. That's why I advised you to rewrite it. I'm an administrator here too, although because I am involved, I cannot take any action, but if I came across an appeal that focuses mostly on others rather than yourself, I would deny it. If you read nothing else in the guide to appealing blocks, please read the WP:NOTTHEM part of it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist thank you. i appreciate your prompt reply and tried to follow your advice. i was just too surprised to see a message like this from an user that I never saw before, who did not even make an effort to have any conversation with me. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You seem like a salvageable editor so I want to explain a few things and I hope you will continue to take interest in the project in the future. First, there are a lot of guidelines for editing this encyclopedia. They come from our consensus building process. Good editors take time to read the guidelines and follow the consensus rather than their own opinion. WP:TEAHOUSE has great starting resources. Coming to the project with the goal of currying favor is a hard place to start being a good editor from but if you restart from here I am confident the community will be pleased to have you back. In this particular instance you were blocked by an administrator after you failed to follow consensus. I understand that your interpretation of the WP:COI guidelines leads to you believe you do not have to follow COI procedure here. Maybe the guidelines should be edited to more directly cover your situation. However, what is in the guideline does not matter when the appropriate WP:VENUE has formed WP:CONSENSUS we can ignore the guidelines. After I determined your editing was not constructive, I reported the pages you made at WP:RFPP/I. This is page with high activity from administrators. One of the admins determined that your block was warranted here. Now I encourage you to read all these policies and the others mentioned and appeal your block. Then I hope you can find joy in editing pages that you do not expect to personally gain from.Czarking0 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0 Thank you for your note. I edited the appeal request as Anachronist suggested. I created my account in 2024 and have not used it for major edits. In total, I have made maybe 3-4 edits. I simply did not have an immediate topic to work on at the time. You are welcome to verify this, and none of the pages I have created are in poor condition. This is the first time I made my own contribution.

When I submitted the page for creation, I skipped through many existing drafts to understand the expected format. I observed that many were poorly written. I made a reasonable and good-faith effort to ensure that my page was well written, properly sourced, and did not require significant cleanup.

I do believe that a Director of Robotics at Facebook is a notable figure and has merits for Wikipedia, given that robotics is a rapidly growing field and will only continue to expand in relevance. With that said, I was monitoring the discussion and made only 1 edit to the page today. My sole contribution was asking which specific elements of the page were considered promotional and not suitable for Wikipedia. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The draft isn't going anywhere(and even it did, can be restored via WP:REFUND). You can respond once you are unblocked. Everyone wants their request to be reviewed quickly- you have no more reason to "jump the queue" than anyone else. Your eagerness to get unblocked could actually work against you. As noted above, you should only be discussing getting unblocked while you are blocked, asking others to edit for you is not permitted. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@331dot So, can I request the draft back and submit it? I just do not see any discussion taking place on the AfD at all. Nothing. It seems like no one is engaging. On most pages, creators participate and editors reply, but here there is no discussion, and my source has not been discussed by even a single person. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "no discussion", this page is filled with discussion. The discussion will occur here, not elsewhere. I have actioned your request above.

When you make your next request, please click "edit" and not "reply" to do so- the automatic indent and signing that comes with clicking "reply" interferes with unblock request formatting. The reply function is imperfect. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@331dot I'd appreciate if you review my request, because the comment you left seems confusing to me and I have been going circles repeating the same thing on my talk. The block reason was listed as "nothere", and that was all. See my comment here User talk:WindsorMaster47#request Here are my pages about living people, please read them : Deepak Pathak, and Abhinav Gupta. There is nothing controversial or promotional in my edits. The pages are complete. I do not need to make any dramatic edits to the pages. I was resolving the template when the block occurred. I made 1 edit on the page on the day the block occured.

It has been frustrating not being able to use the page for 6 days, and not knowing what else I should address in the unblock request, because nobody has raised any issues with my point. I saw that in many unblock requests, people were asked about their responses and to provide examples of the edits they want to make, but nobody asked me anything. My edits on the page do not look like edits of anyone blocked for "notthere" or "coi". WindsorMaster47 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed a request already, so I can't review another. Your anxiousness or desperation to get unblocked is working against you because it actually supports the idea that you are NOTHERE. My strong recommendation is that you go find something else to do until your request is reviewed or you are asked for comment here. You haven't been asked for comment or example edits because it hasn't been necessary. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@331dot An editor shared this on my page, made by someone that pretended to be me and used my articles. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No other examples were provided, but only my articles specifically. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Boy, the reply button is making this confusing. Okay, so that's not you. I'm not sure why someone would want to pretend to be you, but I don't see what that has to do with this. Slow down. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@331dot I do not know. Maybe they intended to keep my page blocked. I virtually did not make any edits to anyone else’s articles and never had any conversations outside of my own article and the block. I was editing my article in piece having no interactions with anyone.WindsorMaster47 (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

If by "can I request the draft back and submit it" you mean you would like your article(s) to be draftified so you can submit them for review at AfC, then don't you agree it's a bit late in the proceedings for that? All three articles were already draftified at least once, but you yourself moved them into the main article space. While you're free to do that (assuming you have no COI), by doing so you run the risk that they may be either speedily deleted or taken to AfD for deletion discussion, which is exactly what happened here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Please tell me if I am wrong, but even COI has nothing to do with an article being draftified. A page should contain promotional content or be in poor condition to be draftified. I moved the pages to mainspace because they looked ready for mainspace.

My articles were draftified, implying they have a COI, yet nobody replied to my messages, so I moved them back. My articles are properly sourced and formatted, and I am not requesting that they be draftified.

Nobody discussed notability with me on the AfD. No one engaged with the article I presented, including the Bloomberg article. It appears that someone simply does not like the topic and is making incorrect statements without allowing me the opportunity to respond. Draft:Skild AI and real press coverage I added, which seems unfair to me. This is the only way it reads. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

WindsorMaster47, I am not an administrator and cannot help you. I am also not going to take part in the AfD discussion. You may however wish to know that often administrators look at the oldest block appeals first, and each time you comment your appeal becomes the newest. I know you are anxious and very much want to be unblocked, but you're accidentally sabotaging yourself every time you comment. Meadowlark (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark thank you! I had no idea about that. It is just that the page that I made is at the AfD and I could not even participate and reply to information that is inaccurate. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

WindsorMaster47, if you'd like, after you're unblocked I'd be happy to discuss sources with you in more detail and explain what is missing in the ones you had for Skild AI. That has to wait until after your unblock, though, because right now you should only be using this page to work on being unblocked. I don't want to see you in trouble or losing talk page access by discussing articles/drafts now, but I wanted to offer to help once you're unblocked. No worries if you don't want to, but the offer is open if you decide you're interested :) Meadowlark (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark that would be wonderful! thank you for offering to help. I had a few sources I wanted to add, but could not make any edits because of the block on the page. I have it in a google doc. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

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).

WindsorMaster47 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Your reason here WindsorMaster47 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC) I am going to add the copy of my previous request. For decline reason 331dot wrote: I'm not sure if you actually have a COI or not- but I will say that you perhaps functionally have one in that you are so personally invested in this topic for whatever reason that its as if you have a COI. Passionate fans of a topic often appear to have a COI because their passion causes them to not hear what more experienced people tell them and edit with the appearance of promotion. I think it's very unlikely you will be unblocked to keep contrbuting about this AI and the people associated with it- at least, based on this.

I made my account in 2024, and this is the first topic that I contributed to. Feel free to check and see my edits do not look like COI slop content that people submit.

I want to explicitly state that I acknowledge the consensus that some admins made that I have a COI. Nonetheless, I believe that did not impact the quality of the good faith edits I made in the past. If I need to make any significant or controversial edits to the topic, I can submit an edit request, but that is not necessary here. For example, one of the edits I want to make is to fix the infobox, as the education field is not appearing in a column, which looks incorrect and was likely caused by missing spacing. I do not believe this type of edit requires an edit request code.

Please, read my page for Abhinav Gupta, editors say it is a notable professor, and nobody says that it would have not passed the AfC or that it is a bad quality promotional article.

My main intention is to finish editing the page, more specifically resolve a box that it is a scam and not written in neutral from. Nothing else needs to be done to the page on my end. It looks complete. Maybe only if there are some significant new news that the page will need to be updated, but so far I added all that seems to be available on the internet.

Passion / interest about the subject does not constitute an account block, as none of my edits were unsuitable. That is my point. My intention is and always was to follow Wikipedia guidelines and ensure that the articles I create fully comply with policy.

My previous response:

At the time, I was discussing coi issues on the talk page with another editor and was editing the article based on that feedback. On the day of the block, I made just 1 edit to the page and was otherwise not actively editing or engaging in any disputes.

I am still learning Wikipedia’s policies and norms. My intent was simply to edit in good faith, improve the article, and follow the guidance I was given.

My goal is to contribute constructively and in line with Wikipedia’s expectations. I was surprised to see a block message from a third-party person I never had any kind of interaction with.

I was having a regular discussion here, and people were giving me feedback, which I followed and made the edits they recommended. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#WindsorMaster47_and_Skild_AI

Thanks!

WindsorMaster47 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Badgering admins and threatening to sock are not the path forward that you think. Unblocking you to continue to edit where you have a COI is not going to be a productive use of the community's time. Further disruption will lead to you losing talk page access. so please edit wisely. Star Mississippi 03:56, 20 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.

Because I am involved, I must refrain from taking action. I want to see you unblocked, but this appeal at the moment isn't convincing. A reviewing administrator would notice that this appeal fails to acknowledge two things: your conflict of interest (consensus established at WP:COIN, which you disagree with), and the appearance of not being here to build an encyclopedia. You have explicitly stated that you are here to create these articles in expectation of a personal benefit: to gain an audience with two researchers. You have also said above that you have no need for edit requests, suggesting that you do not (or did not) understand how to conduct yourself on Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest. Also, you continue to litigate AFD discussions here, levying false accusations against other editors about their ability to read sources, which you shouldn't be doing while blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist I appreciate your note, but I hope you can also understand that I am confused. I feel like I am repeating the same things all over again. Regarding the two points you mentioned that I failed to address. My block reason states “not here to build Wikipedia.” It does not say that I was blocked for promotional or unsuitable COI edits. I also believe I did acknowledge the discussion others raised regarding COI. I am allowed to have a personal opinion, and any form of consensus cannot force anything upon my personal opinion. Is that correct?

I also believe I did not explicitly say this: “explicitly stated that you are here to create these articles in expectation of a personal benefit, to gain an audience with two researchers.” What I said was that I am very interested in what people build. This is one of the biggest robotics projects in the US, and I wanted to make a Wikipedia page, hoping that maybe I would get a chance to meet them and show it, to impress. That does not mean I am expecting personal gain. It is vague and uncertain. As an example, in music or film, 99% of articles are edited or created by fans.

Additionally, the phrase “not here to build Wikipedia” is itself confusing. I am not going to spend 5 hours a day editing Wikipedia. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no Wikipedia rule that blocks someone for that reason. I believe my contribution to this important topic in robotics is, in fact, building Wikipedia and is beneficial to readers interested in robotics. Again, my contribution is not about some unknown commercial company, but about a top robotics project led by the Director of Robotics at Meta, which is making groundbreaking contributions to societal robotics progress.

Regarding COI, can you please, or can someone else, point me to one text edit I made on the subject, which is unsuitable advertising, promotional, or biased in the way COI edits are? Just to show that I am unable to write about the subject in an objective way. I will acknowledge those edits without issue. Otherwise, moving a good article to the mainspace is not prohibited by Wikipedia rules, and all editors have that option.

On the point that I do not understand how to conduct myself with COI, I stated that I read the rules and reviewed the edit request process. I also stated that I did not make any unsuitable edits and therefore do not see the need to create an edit request simply to fix spacing in an infobox. That creates unnecessary process overload and is not productive.

You also mentioned that I made accusations, which I disagree with. I am allowed to say that something is inaccurate. Is that correct? The nominator ignored my Bloomberg article and made inaccurate statements about TechCrunch, to which I want to respond to by citing Wikipedia rules. Quote from WP:INDEPENDENT: “Newspaper article the next morning, quoting the CEO saying the company had revenue of $75B last quarter. Independent of the company.” Wikipedia rules state that the newspaper is not owned or controlled by the company. Therefore, it is an independent source making its own editorial decision about whether to write about the subject, which facts to include, and whether to trust the quoted individual.--WindsorMaster47 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist I genuinely do not know what additional information I should include in the request, because I feel like I am repeating the same points. I made more edits on my talk page asking for a review of the request than the total edits I made to the articles. My edits do not resemble the edits made by blocked users in the request lists I reviewed. I had an open discussion, asked about awards, did not engage in or have any conflict with anyone, and did not add any promotional content. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist as an update, I can see that the discussion for Skild AI was relisted. I simply want the right to respond to what is incorrect, and respond to the messages directed to me. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The COI and your "not here" purpose was established by your own words about your purpose here, referenced at the WP:COIN discussion. You were refreshingly transparent, and had you behaved subsequently as expected of a COI editor, then there would have been no problem. However, other than that statement you made, I still don't see you acknowledging any COI, apparently preferring instead to engage in WP:WIKILAWYERING. Continued harping on a single source, which you can't seem to accept that others have read and disagree with your opinion that it proves notability of the subject (it doesn't because multiple sources are required), is off topic for your appeal.

The Skild AI article has been deleted, which is of no consequence to your block. The history has already been established: You have a COI based on your expected personal benefit from creating an article, you created a draft, it was declined, you moved it to mainspace, it ended up at AFD, you treated the COI noticeboard as a battleground (my impression), and subsequently you got blocked. So here we are.

Right now, focus on your appeal. Once you are unblocked, you can go to WP:Deletion review to make a case for restoring the article, although please note that the focus of such a review is purely about whether the deletion was a correct response to the consensus in the discussion, and not re-arguing about notability of the topic. A possible outcome of a deletion review is for the article to be restored with the AFD re-opened, which may or may not end up with the article being deleted again.

Or, you can start a new draft, and this time let the AFC process run to completion. It's pretty bad form for someone with a COI to perform a unilateral move of a draft to mainspace after it has been declined.

If anything I have said give you ideas for revising your appeal, then revise it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist I genuinely appreciate your note and ideas. My Skild AI draft was declined not due to notability, but because the reviewer, I think, said it was LLM generated. I asked what the problem was and removed the reception section. I do not remember precisely which editor it was, maybe Mississippi. I made the edit and submitted it.

I then waited for three days for some form of suggestion from the COI board, but nobody wrote to me anything about the drafts, so I moved them to the mainspace. It was marked as quarantine in the edit description.

As for the sources, I used just one example, Bloomberg, but there are more than 3 good sources in that draft that meet the 3 source requirement. I simply had no opportunity to discuss this, as the page was blocked.

This statement that you are reffering to was short summary, and I explained in my request and later on my talk and provide more details. Even in my response to you here today .

I acknowledge the COI discussion and the consensus people had, but again, I am allowed to have my personal opinion, and it does not seem to me that there are Wikipedia rules that impose someone’s consensus on a person’s opinion. I said that I intend to act in accordance with COI policies and guidelines. I have said this many times, but my articles are truly in a decent state. I put in my work, used other pages ranked "good" as examples, and copied infoboxes from there. I did not make the form of edits COI editors usually make, and my information was actually neutral. I think this is what matters. That is why I am confused as to what else should I write in the box for the unblock request.

An editor below posted a complaint someone made about the editor who draftified my page. That this is not my anonymous post. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Hello again! I know this must be annoying for you. I am still waiting on my request. I would love to know if my request is suitable or if I need to amend it. It would be unfortunate to wait a week only to have an unsuitable request. I think I am the only editor on the unlock request list who has asked to review my request on the talk. Feel free to check, pages I created in good faith have merits, serve for the interest of readers of the robotics topics and other editors think the same. It just has been stressful to check the block daily. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You are harming yourself by pinging people daily. As an administrator I gave you advice on revising your appeal. Also, if I were a reviewing administrator, I still see a failure to acknowledge a conflict of interest. So would other administrators. However, if you feel you've said what you need to say, then take a week off, particularly if being blocked is causing you stress. You can set up your user preferences to notify you if someone edits your talk page. That way you don't have to check in. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist Thank you for your reply. I’ve made the edits to the box and explicitly bolded the section about the COI.

I hope you can understand that I was honestly confused by the different comments left when the block was placed, including the note to address “notthere,” as well as the separate decline with a different comment from 331dot, and when I tried comparing my request to others with same reasosns for clarify, it only added to the confusion.

Since I put time and care into starting the page, I truly want to make sure I resolve any boxes or concerns that anyone may have. I genuinely appreciate your guidance, and I just want to ensure I’m addressing everything correctly. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @WindsorMaster47

I'm not familiar with your block and not sure why I was pinged, apologies if I'm misremembering something. Unfortunately I do not have the on wiki time to look into it. I'd recommend heeding @Anachronist's advice about not pinging folks. There's no need to check daily. Admins monitor an unblock queue and yours is in there. Star Mississippi 03:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi You just seemed to be one of the main editors reviewing requests on the board. I know everyone is busy with their own stuff. I was not familiar with how to make a proper request, and people here offered their help. I saw that a very small number of requests are getting reviewed daily. I get that many people may not have time to read longer requests. I am not kidding. I have made more edits on my page asking someone to take a look at request than I have made edits on Wikipedia articles. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts Hello! I saw you reviewed blocks about advertising and spam. I wanted to ask if you have time by any chance to review my request that has been pending for a week. My edits were good faith edits and they are of good quality and not promotional spam. I am just close to abandon this account and make a new one. But I would like to have my editing history preserved. I would be very grateful for your help. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I am just close to abandon this account and make a new one. That would be sockpuppetry, which is not allowed. There is a large unblock request backlog. I do not take requests because it's not fair. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Do not ping me again. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts It does not say that it is not allowed to have a few accounts. I have seen even some reviewers have a list of accounts mentioned on their pages. As to the comment of @Star Mississippi, that you left in my unblock box. You said you do not have the time to review my request. Then you said that I am " threatening to sock are not the path forward that you think", while I did not threaten anyone, and especially you.

You also wrote "Unblocking you to continue to edit where you have a COI is not going to be a productive use of the community's time", while I clearly stated what forms of edits, wrote about edit requests, and I made and indent to make in my request also read wrong. Please, tell me where it makes sense. COI does not make a person to be blocked on Wikipedia. I stated many times that pages I made does not require any editing. They are polished pages. I have made 200 edits on my talk page explaining this same thing, feeling like a fool.

My contribution was unjustly draftified, then the same reviewer made a post on COI board, ignoring the rules, while the board says it should only be used when, quote "should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period". The editor choose for whatever reason to create a backload there. It was wrong. I replied to him as soon as he made his comment on my talk and did not add any problematic material anywhere. Please, tell me I did not reply, and I would agree I am wrong. User talk:WindsorMaster47#c-WindsorMaster47-20260207053300-MightyRanger-20260207052300

And the editor who did it, does not care, they just do their editing, while causing stress to new editor, me, that did not do anything wrong. While I have conflicting block reasons, repeating the same thing all over again. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I made two request where explained what edits I made, asked to review my edits, and explained what edicts I want to make and how I want to make them. I waited for an entire last week to still received decline reason like this 1, which left me rather confusing repeating the same thing a hundred times.

Here is the decline reason:"I'm not sure if you actually have a COI or not- but I will say that you perhaps functionally have one in that you are so personally invested in this topic for whatever reason that its as if you have a COI. Passionate fans of a topic often appear to have a COI because their passion causes them to not hear what more experienced people tell them and edit with the appearance of promotion. I think it's very unlikely you will be unblocked to keep contrbuting about this AI and the people associated with it- at least, based on this."

Honestly, is it not confusing to receive this, after I stated 10 times I do not need to make edits to the subject because I made a polished page that does not require anything else? Which literally means I do not want and do not need to contribute about this subject because I polished it. I moved draft to main space because it was fully ready. I even described how I want to remove error mixing education in info box. I genuinely do not know how else to say this in English, what words to use - so this is clear.

So I am not badgering anyone for fun, but rather because of such confusing comments. I want to edit in my peace. For real, can anyone show me one single unsuitable edit, problematic material I added to my subject? Or can someone show one instance when I failed to respond to something? WindsorMaster47 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

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).

WindsorMaster47 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Your reason here: I am repeating the same response and asking to review it, unless someone has any arguments against it and can show examples of bad edits I made. I made my account in 2024, and this is the first topic that I contributed to. Feel free to check and see my edits do not look like COI slop content that people submit. I want to explicitly state that I acknowledge the consensus that some admins made that I have a COI. Nonetheless, I believe that did not impact the quality of the good faith edits I made in the past. If I need to make any significant or controversial edits to the topic, I can submit an edit request, but that is not necessary here. For example, one of the edits I want to make is to fix the infobox, as the education field is not appearing in a column, which looks incorrect and was likely caused by missing spacing. I do not believe this type of edit requires an edit request code. Please, read my page for Abhinav Gupta, editors say it is a notable professor, and nobody says that it would have not passed the AfC or that it is a bad quality promotional article. My main intention is to finish editing the page, more specifically resolve a box that it is a scam and not written in neutral from. Nothing else needs to be done to the page on my end. It looks complete. Maybe only if there are some significant new news that the page will need to be updated, but so far I added all that seems to be available on the internet. Passion / interest about the subject does not constitute an account block, as none of my edits were unsuitable. That is my point. My intention is and always was to follow Wikipedia guidelines and ensure that the articles I create fully comply with policy. My previous response: At the time, I was discussing coi issues on the talk page with another editor and was editing the article based on that feedback. On the day of the block, I made just 1 edit to the page and was otherwise not actively editing or engaging in any disputes. I am still learning Wikipedia’s policies and norms. My intent was simply to edit in good faith, improve the article, and follow the guidance I was given. My goal is to contribute constructively and in line with Wikipedia’s expectations. I was surprised to see a block message from a third-party person I never had any kind of interaction with. I was having a regular discussion here, and people were giving me feedback, which I followed and made the edits they recommended. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#WindsorMaster47_and_Skild_AI Thanks!WindsorMaster47 (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes, I'm the blocking admin, but ... as this user has been blocked from further editing this talk page there is no point in leaving this up. So, procedural decline. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 20 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.

WindsorMaster47 (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Your constant editing of this page, and pinging other users, is getting out of hand, and as you are clearly unable or unwilling to control yourself, I have done it for you by removing your editing access to this page. You have (yet another) open appeal, which will be reviewed in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick note for admins - I've seen that they've selectively removed comments from discussions, stating they're "cleaning up" their Talk page. OFC they're allowed to do this, but it a bit weird since editors normally delete entire threads, rather than bits in the middle.

This includes a post where I asked if they'd submitted an ANI complaint against the person who monitored their articles for deletion under a TA.

I've submitted an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WindsorMaster47. I don't know for certain whether I'm correct in my report, but wanted to submit it for an admin to consider the available evidence. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

WindsorMaster47, in case you see this, do not make another account under any circumstances. Editors are permitted to have more than one account, yes. However, blocks and bans don't apply to the account, they apply to the person. You are currently blocked, so any accounts you have will also be blocked. If you make another account now and start editing Wikipedia, this will be considered block evasion and the new account will be immediately blocked. The same applies if you try editing while not logged in, or on a temporary account. If you do this, you are also liable to receive a community ban, which means you have to convince the entire Wikipedia community that you should be unblocked. That's very difficult to do; you don't want to go down this road.

Please take some time to cool off - I strongly suggest waiting a week at absolute minimum - before doing anything else. Read through all the advice administrators and other editors have given you. When you have done so, you could try sending one unblock request asking for talk page access back and promising not to keep commenting and pinging on your talk page, or asking to be unblocked with an explanation of what you now understand you did wrong and what you will do to avoid repeating the behaviour. Keep it concise; one or two paragraphs should be plenty. Don't do anything else, don't try to contact anyone, don't try to follow up, just be patient. It might take weeks before you get a response. You will not be forgotten, but you do have to wait and let things happen at Wikipedia's pace.

I believe you could be a good, competent editor. Your impulsivity can be overcome. But you have to start by showing that you can be patient, you can listen, and that you understand what you've done wrong. Part of that is definitely bludgeoning, and I suspect you will need to address not listening to others as well. Read through these. In fact, read through every policy and guideline people have linked you to here. Take the time to understand how they apply. Be patient. If you are confused, I believe I have email turned on (so you can email me via Wikipedia) and I will try to explain things you don't understand. If you choose to do so, please use it as an exercise in patience; I am disabled and will not be able to respond quickly, and I will not continue trying to help if you send more than one email in response to an email I send to you. Do not email anyone else unless invited. And finally, best wishes to you. Meadowlark (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately it turns out that they have multiple socks both before and after this account, so their best option going forwards is the Standard offer as a 3x banned editor. Presuming they choose to stop making sockpuppets. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)