Abumoh00

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Charlie Angus Youtube Link Removal

Can you explain the reason or point me in the direction of why you deleted the YouTube Template from Charlie Angus page? The only comment was "promo link removed."

Since retiring from the House of Commons, one of Mr. Angus' main roles has been as a YouTuber. He currently produces videos on an a nearly daily basis and it is mentioned at the end of his wiki page. Considering this is one of his main activities, I am not sure why this is considered irrelevant. Many figures active on YouTube have links to their channels on their pages. Are those also considered "promo links?" There are at least several hundred of them on the site if not more. Ottawajin (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

After I did that I realized maybe it's become normalized. To me it's very clearly promo, and yeah pretty much every Youtube link would be considered that. But, of course Im' open to other arguments, I don't know what the norm is. Abumoh00 (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE seems to imply that it's alright to post links to YouTube so long as the YouTube video or channel is relevant and does not link to videos that contain copyright infringing or other prohibited content.

I think it's relevant in the case of Charlie Angus because it is one of the main things he does at this point.

Anyhow, it's good practice to cite the rules you are invoking in the Edit Summary when reverting other users' edits - unless they are clearly in bad faith or what you are deleting is obvious vandalism.

Adding a shortcut link (Wikipedia:Shortcut index) to your edit summary - such as "Reverted due to WP:PROMOTION violation" or even just adding the wikilink "WP:PROMOTION" helps you to communicate your reasoning better to long-term editors and also educate newbies about what they are doing wrong. They can click on the link and be immediately directed to the relevant rules that you used as the reason for your revert. I made a lot of mistakes as a newbie and shortlinks like these in the edit summaries of long-term editors helped me to better understand Wikipedia editing guidelines.

I don't use these so much as I don't revert that much - other than vandalism. Next time I post a comment on a talk page though, I'll be sure to use these in my comments as well. :) Cheers. Ottawajin (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Lesnar being Canadian

Hi Abumohoo. I know that citations aren't added to the lead, but I couldn't find a sentence mentioning Canadian in the 'early life' section. For a 'Good Article', I thought that was a bit strange. I really wasn't in the mood to play detective checking each reference until I found it ... which I finally found in reference #16. Hopefully that's what you meant by 'literally in the article and it being a well-known fact'.

I won't remove it again, but you might want to explain to me what 'please stop removing or it'll be escalated at this point' means. I know it doesn't mean we will be dealt with if we dare remove it again ... that wouldn't be good at all. Myself, I would rather be told that the citation was there all along in the 'early life' section. Either way, I now found out he's Canadian. Thank you for your time. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Hello, I'm Allan Nonymous. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey! I'm happy to discuss your concerns if you are able to discuss on the Talk page further, as I'm not clear on what they are specifically/precisely. Abumoh00 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Shelley Carroll

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Shelley Carroll, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

unceded territories

hello! I've noticed you've removed the "unceded territory" moniker from the Wiikwemkoong First Nation page. why? it is unceded territory, not having signed the Robinson Huron Treaty, nor the Manitoulin Treaty. unceded territory should be defined. FUNgus guy (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

you are welcome to comment in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 10#Category:Unceded territories in Ontario. FUNgus guy (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:WikiAdvisor per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiAdvisor. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Toadspike [Talk] 07:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

? Abumoh00 (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed to appeal this(?) Abumoh00 (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Appealing SP accusation and block; unsure what I need to do?

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).

Abumoh00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I'm not sure what evidence I need to present or can present without exposing my identity From what I could gather I edited 2 pages that a suspected SP account did, both related to Canada and English-speaking countries' politics, which is what I'm interested in and edit about.

Otherwise, I see one user (TarnishedPath) mentioned I brought up a potential COI on Canada's National Observer page, which was brought up by previous users, and which makes sense because the editor in question has only ever edited that page and a person's page closely tied to that page/org.

Any advice appreciated. As you can see my edit history is (somewhat :]) large, and I aim to be constructive, including undoing vandalism. I've received several thanks for my editing. I hope I can continue to do so as I enjoy editing and improving Wikipedia as a project. Abumoh00 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with the evidence presented of sockpuppetry. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 11 May 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.

There are many more similarities to previous sockpuppets than just editing two pages. Some examples here: similar to a previous unblock request, you initially claimed not to know how to appeal and have not actually denied being a sockpuppet. I am willing to share further details privately with the admin who reviews this request; I can't imagine anything you say could retroactively change these similarities. Separately, continuing to cast unfounded aspersions against another editor, itself a blockable offense, in your unblock request is a bold strategy (for the record, you first did this in and were warned about it ). Toadspike [Talk] 08:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Abumoh00, I'm on the other side of the planet from Canada. Trying to claim that I have a COI for a page that I've edited all of 16 times, when I have over 50,000 edits is a non-starter. The fact that both you and the previous block evading editor made the same claim, despite how far-fetched the idea is, is very telling. TarnishedPath^talk 09:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what aspersions you're referring to; TarnishedPath mentioned I brought up a COI about a user on Canada's National Observer, I believe their name is Lorcanfantas or something like this, hence my unblock message about this, as I guess[?] a previous SP was one of the other users who had previously raised that COI concern.

I apologize if it was taken some other way as me accusing TarnishedPath of COI, that's very clearly not the case, as my message makes clear - TarnishedPath has made 50k+ edits on a variety of pages, unlike the Lorcanfantas editor in question. Abumoh00 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please take care not to discuss the behaviour of other editors whilst you're blocked, see WP:NOTTHEM.

I'm going to operate on the assumption that you're being honest in this response, but I'm not an admin so I cannot see what they do. I want to write this post in case you are genuinely a new editor.

It is admittedly difficult for blocked editors to dispute sockpuppetry allegations; sockpuppetry involves significant disruption to Wikipedia so at least part of the investigation process must be kept private - sockpuppet masters will do whatever they can to get around the security measures we have, so some of that must be kept secret for the sake of the website as a whole. The risk of allowing malicious editors onto the site is just too great a risk.

Unfortunately, there is always a chance of legitimate editors being unfairly blocked as a result, but we do our best to make sure that happens as little as possible.

Look through the available evidence and do the best you can, but be prepared for the fact that you might not be able to edit this website because of the above. You're still welcome to read through Wikipedia, you just wouldn't be able to edit it.

If you are currently engaging a block and operating a sockpuppet account, please read through the Standard offer process, as this may be a possible option if you genuinely want to return. You will need to be very honest about your previous history if you follow this route, including coming clean about your previous editing history. Blue-Sonnet 14:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate this kind response. I appreciate you explaining, and I do understand this puts me in a position where I can't really contest on a even playing feild.

I'm not sure what significant disruption entails, I guess I would just point to my edit history, undoing vandalism, and working with a wide diversity of topics and editors to improve Wiki to show I'm not doing that.

I understand that perhaps being a productive or contributive editor, in good faith, is not itself a reason to unblock. I just figured since you mentioned these usually deal with significant disruption, malicious actors, and people doing damage to Wikipedia, I think I'm pretty clearly none of those, and just enjoy editing and trying to improve Wikipedia as I can. Abumoh00 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I can totally understand and sympathise with hostility or negative emotion towards accused sockpuppets and sockpuppets. It seems the SP I'm being accused of being here has a editor or two whose invested in keeping them out. I can respect and understand that.

The accusation that I accused TarnishedPath of COI, when I was clearly pointing to another editor (Lorcafantas) in both my [1] edit Toadspike referenced above, and in my unblock request, is one thing making me think emotion is involved (and naturally so). I just am worried this means I'm up against further disadvantage.

I guess I'm also struggling to know what the similarities are. So far I see:

a. 2 pages I edited that an accused sockpuppet also edited.

b. Overlap of pages edited (as mentioned I like Canadian and other anglosphere politics, international relations, and related topics), although that is far from what I only edit.

I imagine other editors who do enjoy these topics also live in similar IP ranges/regions and have similar cultural/language overlap, if I'm understanding how IP ranges work. That's expected.

c. I claimed I'm unsure how and with what I can appeal (like you kindly pointed out can be the case in these information asymmetry scenarios). Whereas a previous suspected SP claimed they weren't sure how to appeal either (I'm not sure if they were referring to the same evidence issue as I was).

Re: this, I have to imagine this is a common question of editors being blocked for the first time, and an expected unfamiliarity of the process, what they can present as evidence, etc.

d. Argument that I didn't explicitly spell out that I'm not a SP, whereas the Basher SP also didn't spell that out in their unblock request. I figured this is fairly obvious that is what I'm doing given my appeal; but I'm happy to say: I'm not a SP, if it helps.

Looking at the unblock request of the suspected SP (Basher) just, I would say it's also fairly clear that they are claiming they aren't a SP.

Similarities that don't stand scrutiny (I would say a couple of the above don't as well, but I will be charitable and just include only the most obvious incorrect alleged similarities):

e. Accusations that I made a COI claim against TarnishedPath. As covered above, this is clearly not the case, athough I apologized given it was taken that way. Re: similarities, TarnishedPath said a previous accused SP did make a COI accusation against them; I haven't been able to see where that was.

And apologies of mentioning these 2 other editors, I only do so to respond to the accusations and because it appears they are being used to allege I'm a SP, so it's relevant. Abumoh00 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Another reason I'm worried there's emotion stacked against me is that I see many of my good edits are being reverted, against the policy I see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_sockpuppets#Reverting_edits Abumoh00 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, if you double-check that page you'll see that it's an essay written by individual editors, it's not a policy.

Since blocked editors shouldn't be editing in the first place, any of their edits can be reverted - but it's possible to take a common-sense approach when it comes to individual edits. Blue-Sonnet 21:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah it just made common sense to me, but I see in my watch list it wasn't being adhered to.

Do I have to reappeal my block then do you know? I thought the evidence I presented above in response to you was part of the process/a conversation.

I realized that someone looked at my appeal and rejected it. I'm wondering if they took the arguments made at face value without seeing what I addressed under my messages above[?]

What do I have to do in order to unblock? If my explanations above won't overturn the block, I guess there is genuinely no way to? Abumoh00 (talk) 04:07, 12 May 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).

Abumoh00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

see above conversation and explanations below the first appeal template, addressing both real, alleged, and mistaken similarities; if unsatisfactory, I would greatly appreciate knowing what is missing and how to proceed, if I can at all. Much thanks.Abumoh00 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No. Nobody's going to do that. See WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request someone might actually read. Yamla (talk) 22:03, 13 May 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.

Appeal

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).

Abumoh00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I'm appealing as the block justifications put forth so far (those available to me/publicly), are either incorrect (I did not accuse TarnishedPath of COI per above) or fall within what I would think are expected overlaps with other editors of my IP region & interests. If it matters, I have a history of productive and diverse edits. I undo vandalism. I work with editors to find compromises. I'm happy to provide further evidence if needed. It is difficult to know what more to say as all the evidence provided so far I've addressed above. Abumoh00 (talk) 1:08 am, 15 May 2026, Friday (22 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

At this point the most likely path to editing would be to take a >6 month break before coming back to request a standard offer unblock. Alternatively, there may be appetite for a sooner unblock if you are willing to agree to a topic-ban from areas of editing associated with the sockmaster that you have been identified with; based on a quick review, my guess is that would likely have to be something like a topic ban from Canadian politics, Canadian journalism, and Indigenous peoples of Canada. If you wish to pursue the conditional topic ban route, please file a new request, otherwise I recommend only coming back once enough time has elapsed for a WP:SO (although you are encouraged to contribute to other Wikimedia projects in the meantime, and quality collegial editing elsewhere will be taken as evidence in favor of unblocking down the road). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 5 June 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.

(Non-administrator comment) The declined block appeal notice explains that you will lose access to your Talk page if you make too many unsuccessful appeals - I strongly suspect this appeal will also be unsuccessful. Blue-Sonnet 05:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting Blue. As I noted in the appeal, I'm not sure what else I can say, because I made sure that each claim/point of evidence that has been provided was addressed/explained one by one; either being incorrect (the COI accusation against Tarnished) or expected/natural (IP ranges and topics of interest for people of my region).

I've made sure to note this and ask for advice on how to proceed/improve in my appeals/comments; I've read the WP:GAB and other suggested pages. I also think it's fairly clear I'm here in good faith and am not appealing just for the sake of wasting my or anyone else's time.

As you said earlier, perhaps there's nothing I can say or do, and simply my block is justified based on the claims made so far (minus the false COI one), even though to me, given the explanations above, this doesn't make sense (it would mean that anybody in my region/IP region with my fairly common interests could be labeled as this person's sock). Abumoh00 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)