This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).
Hello, I would like to apologize hallucinated materials and hallucinated references I have posted in the past due to ChatGPT. I did not check the sources thoroughly. Going forward I will check my sources 100%. I also will not make huge changes without first talking it over the Talk page. I also will not edit articles I would like to push back just slightly though on the "initial short block" reason, aka the Kansas edit. I sourced the "Handbook on Divorce and Annulment Registration in Kansas". That handbook does indeed show "Kan. Admin. Regs. § 28-17-20 - Corrections to certificates and records", the regulation used to establish the legal framework for gender marker changes in Kansas. That handbook did not however cite exact dates of amendments to the regulation to when it first allow gender marker changes. I thought though Kansas "Case No. 2016-cv-0150" and exact test of "Kan. Admin. Regs. § 28-17-20 - Corrections to certificates and records" and found it was adopted in 1986 and took effect May 1, 1987. I had cited May 1, 1987 in that edit for "Handbook on Divorce and Annulment Registration in Kansas". So I was right in the regulation and effective date, I need to spell out exact date of it being amended, which I did via the court case. Hope that clears that up. The information was not "The date still seems to be hallucinated" as the user implied. Cheers,Gengeros (talk)02:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You won't be unblocked without a ban on your use of LLM's. You may possibly need to give up your extended-confirmed rights, too, given these seriously problematic edits.Yamla (talk)11:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
@Gengeros in your unblock request above you indicate that there was an amendment to the Kansas regulation "§ 28-17-20" to allow gender marker change that was enacted in 1986 and took effect on May 1, 1987. Where in the two sources[1][2] thatyou added after your 24-hour block expired did it state that that particular change was introduced on May 1, 1987? I reviewed them closely and found zero statements to this effect. Of course, I could have made a mistake, and if I did, please let us know. Also, your unblock request above has a very different style of writing than yourprevious unblock request, which suggests LLMs were involved in your first request, which would violate your promise in that very unblock request tofully disclose any use of drafting tools when relevant so there’s no question about what is and isn’t AI-assisted.NicheSports (talk)02:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Petitioners-Opposition-to-Respondents-Motion-to-Dismiss-Petitioners-Petition-for-Review.pdf "In accordance with that authority, in 1986, the Department adopted Kansas regulation K.A.R. 28-17-20(b)(1)(A)(i), which allows a person to amend the gender marker on a Kansas birth certificate based upon an affidavit that the sex was incorrectly recorded, or with a medical certificate substantiating that a physiological or anatomical change occurred." "The Regulation was adopted in 1986 and enforced for 26 years before, on February 22, 2012, under Governor Brownback, the agency apparently adopted an informal policy to cease enforcing it." It was adopted in 1986 and took effect May 1, 1987 as regulations regarding vitals do.https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/kansas/K-A-R-28-17-20 "effective1/1/1966; amended May 1, 1987; amended May 1, 1988"
Yes, as I specified at ANI that source indicates that the regulation was adopted in 1986. I found nothing about it taking effect on May 1, 1987. Can you point me to the page where it does?NicheSports (talk)02:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only date it can take effect is May 1, 1987 as that is the date the regulation is amended. There was no regulation amended prior to that date and the next one is May 1, 1988. Hence adopted (key word here, not effective date) in 1986 and took effect 1987.Gengeros (talk)02:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how this works.
[3] contains the current regulation which makes it clear that gender marker change based on identity isnot allowed. It also specifies that the relevant regulation was amended many times, but says nothing (that I could find) about what was included in each amendment
[4] specifies that a regulation about gender marker change was adopted in 1986. It says nothing about it taking effect on May 1, 1987
That's not a guess, that's deductive reasoning. It literally can't be anything else. There is no regulation amending of it in 1986. If you have another hypothesis of when the date would be, please tell me. Because all the evidence in the code and the court case says May 1, 1987. May 1, 1987 -> Feb 22, 2012 is 24 years, 9 months, 21 days. So round it up to 25 years. In the court says they says "The Regulation was adopted in 1986 and enforced for 26 years before, on February 22, 2012, under Governor Brownback, the agency apparently adopted an informal policy to cease enforcing it." It was adopted and enforced, meaning it was put into the regulatory system in 1986, took effect the date of May 1, 1986.Gengeros (talk)02:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deductive reasoning isWP:OR which isn't allowed here. More concerningly you continue to say that "all the evidence in the... court case says May 1, 1987". There is nothing I can find in the plaintiff filing (pdf above) that you provided that states May 1, 1987. I have asked you multiple times to provide a page number for this information and you have not done so. So it is concerning that you continue to say there is "evidence" of this in the pdfNicheSports (talk)02:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't get blocked because the date you added was wrong (although I don't know if it was or not) - you were blocked because you continued to add information to articles that that was unsupported by the sources you added, which is a violation ofWP:V, one of our most important policies. I don't understand why we are talking about other sources now.NicheSports (talk)03:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "hallucinated date" was the reason I was blocked. The information I posted was the best cited sources I could find. I am sorry I don't have a literal source saying "gender marker changes on birth certificates were allowed in Kansas on May 1, 1987." And if I find new information that conflicts with old information I posted, I go though and see which is correct and fix it. I do not leave false information posted. I always update with the best source of information.Gengeros (talk)03:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "hallucinated date" was the reason I was blocked. No, it is not. What pushed things to your being blocked was adding sources that you claimed supported that date, when they did not. This is a failure ofWP:V, ourmost important and fundamental policy. -The BushrangerOne ping only04:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of link was it was effective May 1, 1987 when I posted them. I looked at the sourced and concluded based on the court documents that the only date it could have happened was May 1, 1987 because that is the only date the regulation was amended in the time frame in it.Gengeros (talk)04:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Hey @Gengeros, the issue is that you can't conclude or deduct anything, if everyone did that the encyclopedia would be a mess! If you're writing that something happened on May 1 1987, you need a reliable source that says that exact thing happened on May 1 1987.
No inferences, no calculations.
Every claim (within reason!) must have a source that mirrors and proves that claim.
Wikipedia is edited by so many people that there have to be strict rules over verification of sources - most editors aren't journalists or scholars so that requirement is there to make sure that everything is fair and as accurate as possible.
You need to show that you understand this foundational principle of Wikipedia in any future unblock requests, otherwise you'll end up in the same situation.Blue Sonnet (talk)15:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gengeros, I have no input on the subject of the sources, however after reading this it appears despite multiple editors attempts to educate you on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, you are choosing not to listen. Anything a source doesn't say is irrelevant. To take your case, unless areliable source says 'May 1, 1987', it automatically comes underWP:SYNTH and will be reverted.11WB (talk)18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).
Ok I accept the ban on LLM use, but I would like "extended-confirmed rights" defined exactly if you do extend it to that. Thank you.Gengeros (talk) 3:01 pm, 27 October 2025, Monday (11 days ago) (UTC−4)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
@Gengeros Thank you, but to clarify, I'm asking a different question: if you got unblocked and revisited those parts of that article that you previously edited, what are specific changes that would improve sourcing and verifiability? For example, are any of the citations that you added insufficient, and if they are, what would you do to improve the situation? You could copy the material to your sandbox and work on it there if you like.Dreamyshade (talk)17:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes absolutely. I always try to fix and improve sources and verifiability when I can. I did that even before being blocked and try my best in sandbox. I would make sure the sources and verifiability match with my claims in the article.Gengeros (talk)17:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gengeros Thank you, I understand that you have good intent. I'm asking for a list of specific edits you would make, to learn about whether you have improved your skills. In that set of changes, can you give an example of a source you added that does not sufficiently support a claim you added?Dreamyshade (talk)19:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gengeros If you're still using AI/LLM then that's areally bad idea right now. Either the AI/LLM isn't understanding the question or you personally aren't able to understand it, both of which indicate that you're not in a position to edit Wikipedia competently - seeWikipedia:Competence is required.Blue Sonnet (talk)00:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pretty good chance that this response involved an LLM due to the difference in style to their own voice -recent example - and unfortunately there isn't enough trust here to discuss it. I also don't see any specific understanding of the problem in this response. I was considering offering to mentor this user under certain conditions (self-imposed LLM ban, XC revoked, potential GENSEX TBAN), but I unfortunately cannot see a path forward and do not think an unblock is appropriate. Of course not up to me but my 2 cents.NicheSports (talk)17:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the blocking administrator, I won't outright decline the unblock request here as it isn'tblatantly declinable, but given the discussion above I don't believe the editorhas the ability to contribute constructively to English Wikipedia at this time. (I also concur that that bullet-pointed response is very likely LLM.) -The BushrangerOne ping only02:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I forgot about that comment. To answer you question months ago, "Would you support or oppose Banning transgender people from serving in the military?" isn't a <ref> per say, it is supposed to be a note about the question asked in support or opposition of the question. So there wasn't any citation there, but I should have responded. Sorry.Gengeros (talk)23:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one was similar behavior, and especially uncollaborative. Dreamyshade went through a lot of the edits from Gengeros, highlighted serious problems, and it was simply summarily deleted, without any acknowledgement or effort made to address any of those problems.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)00:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gengeros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Siege of Budapest order of battle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, Gengeros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Siege of Budapest order of battle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
