Here is a draft of my apology, should I go ahead and publish it or do you have any proposed amendments?
Good Afternoon all,
Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it.
I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty and integrity.
To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it, I refused to admit using AI and simply ket repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT’’ which I concede evasive, albeit accurate . By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration and that I was trying to avoid admitting to using Artificial Intelligence which was misleading.
The issue User:GiantSnowman raised about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me and that I admit to attempting to “give then the run around”. I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acing as if I did nothing wrong.
This is not an attempt to justify it, however I would like to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly down to laziness and attempts to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy.
I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly viewed decided to launch a “counter attack” (my complaint against GS). I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that I apologise.
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I now realise that I was backed into a hole. Instead of admitting I was wrong, my actions became an attempt to salvage my pride. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future.
I get that Wikipedia is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future - I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit.
Reads fine generally speaking, just a couple of points below. As a heads up, other editors will likely critique and criticise this, even picking it apart word for word, but that shouldn't be of much concern to you. The point is your putting your hands up and committing to becoming a responsible in the going forward. As I suggested before, please try avoid replying to every comment or future vote going forwards, even if it's to say "thanks" or otherwise (use the thank button if needed). Others will discuss your statement and behaviour, but unless you are asked a question, you are not expected to reply and it's more likely to hinder the process of avoiding a CBAN than contributing to it (usually at least).
"which I concede evasive, albeit accurate" - this accuracy is irrelevant, I recommend simply removing it. The devil is not in the details here, but the acknowledgement of wrongdoing only. These specifics are only going to piss people off further.
" but I now realise that I was backed into a hole" - you felt backed into a hole, nobody put you there. You could say you "felt" backed into a hole, but again this is irrelevant now. You are in the situation that you are in, so no need to dwell on how you got there.
Final suggestion, when posting, create a new section header at the bottom of the discussion (with === depth) and title it Response from Footballnerd200. This will help to highlight the statement, as well as better organise the discussion. CNC (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good Afternoon all,
Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it.
I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity.
To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading.
The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy.
I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise.
I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Wikipedia is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit.
Some AI generators are flagging parts of it as AI generated which I'm worried they may try to use against me. I swear that I wrote 100% of this manually without use of any form of LLM/AI but I fear that others may try to discredit me by pulling up AI generators. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it'd be useful to put this template at the top of the main topic (ie Complaint against User:GiantSnowman) once you have posted your response, in order to direct users to there and away from your original complaint. You can also consider striking the original complain with <s> </s> in order for editors to identify that it has been struck.
Have added list of commitments for mentorship, hope they are OK with you. As I said on the noticeboard, the last two are simply to try and protect you from finding trouble. You are welcome to signal agreement with such conditions, but any further opinion or questioning would be better in the discussion section just below. Best of luck. CNC (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, with GiantSnowman supporting mentorship and accepting your statement that should be half way there, but I wouldn't get too overexcited quite yet. With involuntary mentorship it should come with a declaration on your user talkpage also, but will come to that if it get's that far. CNC (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Generally because it would be imposed as part of a community sanction, as an alternative to a CBAN, see Wikipedia:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship. Naturally there is a voluntary aspects to both parties agreeing to such a mentorship and "Involuntary" isn't the best term for this. CNC (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could answering this question "By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]" go against me? How would you approach it? - please answer for "yes (I was born in 2007)" and "no". Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, it's less about whether it will go in your favour or not being 17 years old. There are much younger editors who are fully competent it's worth nothing, and much older who are thoroughly disruptive. This to me is more about whether you are willing to be transparent about your age, even though it's not a requirement per WP:PRIVACY. And whether you are the sort of person who is fit for mentorship potentially. That'd be my guess anyway. CNC (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS this is an example of what not to respond to.[1] It's a !vote which they are entitled to and your opinion is not going to change their mind. Give it time and more editors will !vote either way. CNC (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afternoon CNC! I've just finished developing the zonal qualifier articles for the 2027 FIFA WWC. I'd appreciate it if you could review these and give me some feedback on my work!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballnerd2007 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK will have a look at those new articles, but someone else who is part of NPR would be better to do review than me probably, as these tournament based articles I'm not very familiar with (notability wise). I see one of them has been reviewed, so can't be all bad at least. Overall they need WP:SIGCOV added, even if they are likely notable subjects already. CNC (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikimedia Commons. If the images are released under creative commons license, then they go there. Please just make sure to only upload images you have taken, and that you have the rights to release. CNC (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is going on with 2024 African Nations Championship? There are various media reports reporting different things about the tournament and number of teams and CAF media releases are becoming increasingly unreliable, I have no idea what's going on! Should the pots be removed? What do i do with participating teams list? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ — Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a broken link with no archive I could find. Either it moved or deleted (the cache still exists in search engines). I otherwise ran archive IA bot over the page,[2] but as the source wasn't included it served little purpose. CNC (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, approximately an ago more specifically. Technically yes, a WP:RSPTWITTER would be OK per WP:ABOUTSELF, but this is best avoided. There's a good chance there was a good reason why the article was deleted, for example because it contained an error or otherwise. That would be my assumption, as I didn't find it in the news section, so unlikely it moved. Consider that if you can only reference the information from their social media, but not their website, it's highly suspicious WP:V wise. So instead of rushing to include this information within the first hour, please wait. CNC (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't deleted as i was online when it was posted and it was a dead link from the outset. I noticed this happens with a lot of CAF articles these days, their media department is inept to say the least! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, if you type into google "CHAN 2024 draw procedure" the preview text is still there, as is the thumbnail showing parts of the draw procedure. It shows that there will be 3 groups of 5 and 1 of 4 which we already knew and who the top seeds will be. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are best of taking this to the talkpage, where you can discuss with other editors of the article. You might not be the only one with this question or query, and others might have answers. CNC (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, these tournament based articles I'm not that familiar with. Keep an eye on the edit history as if you made a mistake, then hopefully there will be another editor who can correct it. Otherwise as suggested, head to talkpage if you're not sure. CNC (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you have tagged Harry Menzies as "an editor found sufficient sources exist". Well, could you put the links of those existing sources that you have found here, so that I can actually add them and improve the page.
Apologies, I have no idea where I found sources to include after searching again. If I remember correctly I went down the Crystal Palace archives rabbit role, but can't find my way again. I've therefore removed the tag. For context I'm a relatively new at NPR, so this interaction is part of the learning curve for me. Next time if I find obscure sources I'll make sure to add a list to the talk page (unless they easy to find with a google search for example), as I realise it's not helpful leaving such a template otherwise. CNC (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only other point to add is that if I remember correctly, it was from searching "Crystal Palace: The Complete Record 1905–2011" in google books, and then having a look through some of the history books such as A History of the Crystal Palace and Its Football Club 1851-1915. It involved obtaining a copy via sources that I'm unable to link or share with you unfortunately. CNC (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cooperation. I am glad to have contributed to your evolution as an NPR (whatever that means).
Hi, this matter is totally unrelated to football - i've noticed the notable alumni list here lists a convicted sex-offender, should i keep or remove? - i can't see any WP policy on the matter. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 10:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, if anything it's much more likely to enhance it with WP:SIGCOV. I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of notability here, ie being notable. It's nothing to do with "good" or "bad". CNC (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
January 2025
Hello, CommunityNotesContributor. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Footballnerd2007, I received your email, although apologies I'm afraid I'm not willing to reply for security reasons myself. I respect your privacy though, so I'll provide an encoded response. If you read through the entire section (and sub-section) of the subject you are specifically concerned about, you should find the answer readily available for how to handle the situation you describe. Alternatively, if that hint doesn't clarify the situation for you, you could email an admin to advise you. In general for private communication and any security concerns, you can otherwise contact WP:ARBCOM directly. I hope that helps, while respecting your privacy. CNC (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I note that you've asked that I not participate in your thread at WT:Requested moves, so I'll post the following here:
Per WP:PCM: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if (...) someone could reasonably disagree with the move."
WP:RMT is for technical moves. A primary topic swap is not a technical move, and is in fact potentially controversial. Primary topic swap requests such as Ella Morris can go straight to an RM discussion.
In this case, I'm not objecting to the move, but rather the attempted shortcutting of our widely-accepted processes. I urge you to use WP:RMT only for uncontroversial technical moves.
Hey 162, there's been a misunderstanding here, please post this in the relevant topic. In no way was I attempting to restrict you from the discussion per "162 etc. can clarify if I am misrepresenting or misunderstanding this reasoning,(...)". I was only attempting to solicit uninvolved opinion on the topic for the benefit of neutrality. For what it's worth, based on the first response in the topic, it seems you're in the right. All the best, nothing personal, good-faith and all. CNC (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this isn't news to you, but disparate discussions about Musk's recent actions continue to overrun Talk: Elon_Musk. I don't know what the proper response but it's become difficult to track what consensuses have or have not formed. QRep2020 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Consensus should be used to document this, but unfortunately this hasn't occurred. I've also used this template before for documenting "there is no consensus to change X/Y/Z", which in itself is a form of consensus. CNC (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red February 2025
Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331
No sooner was a responding to you, it was retracted. LOL. You're fast! No problem, and thank you also for your work with FBN! With regard top the issue you were about to bring up on my talk page, I will agree that it probably could have been otherwise closed if it wasn't for their pings. You also caught me mid-talk page post to the nom about CANVASS which their ping was rather inappropriate because you just don't ping those who have contributed to the article in alignment with your own views, but broadly. Part of the point on my pings where to demonstrate by example how pings/canvass should occur, which is broadly to all those who have expressed views. Of course, they seem to choose (understandably so) to not include those who have previously expressed opposing views. Cheers! TiggerJay(talk)18:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh sorry about that, I realised after the revert that you'd almost certainly be replying to a deleted comment lol. After seeing your pings, I think you played the right card here. If anything there could be a lot more to said about this RM and the nom with further participation from (historically) previous RM participants. Feel free to ping me in a week or so for close if it remains open. CNC (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and as it related to your question of reverting an RM-NAC. Policy says (and I generally agree with) that a bad closure (outside of something overt like vandalism) should only be reverted by an administrator. For the rest of us, we're required to go to the talk page of the closer, and failing that, then we can bring it to WP:MR. However, based on your comment, I am going to make a few adjustments to my talk page template as you're the second person to mention not wanting to revert my edits, and generally speaking I do believe in BRD and have no problem with experienced editors (yourself included) reverting anything I did boldly... Although again, as to not create too much further confusion, I do think that BRD does not apply to RM-NAC, as there is an official procedure for those. TiggerJay(talk)19:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a clarification would be beneficial here. The suggestion (to me) is that you are OK with being reverted generally speaking, but as you point out, there's plenty of examples of when a revert is not OK per policy. Hence I was aware this was completely outside of the remit of a BRD based revert as it were. Without clarification, you're asking inviting trouble :) CNC (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
