EasternShah
unblock request
edit
EasternShah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
I know that @CoconutOctopus: recommended that I take the standard offer, but I think that I have extra considerations to add, which may show that I am capable of returning to Wikipedia. Outside of WP:ARBPIA, I have been a constructive editor. I have created lots of quality content during and after my topic ban. For example, I have gotten 2 lists to FL status: List of World Heritage Sites in Africa and List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Palestine. I have also gotten to one article through GAN, Vau i Dejës Hydroelectric Power Station (which I also nominated for DYK). I have mentored people, which has helped solidify my own understanding of policy. I have worked at Articles for Creation, I have reviewed content at GAN and FLC. I have gotten a sock blocked (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerrGutmannsWiki). I have also been active at making sure people who are inconstructive on the project blocked, from the entire encylcopedia or a part of it, like at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1219#Beareditz4 and at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1218#ErickTheMerrick. I have also nominated articles which are not notable for deletion, and I have gotten most of them deleted. I have also created lots of articles in the time since I was blocked, (which can be seen here). Thus, I think I can be called a productive editor outside of ARBPIA. Of course, no matter how productive an editor is, they are not irreplaceable. I was topic banned for having a battle ground attitude, which I do not display anymore. This battle ground attitude was evident through my incivility, double standards, bludgeoning, and bad faith assumptions. I was new to editing Wikipedia, especially in terms of discussions on Wikipedia, which is what led to my misbehavior, rather than because I have stronger feelings about Palestine-Israel than anything else that I edit. I will not (and do not) use double standards anymore. In the AE case, an example of me using double standards was removing a source for a (now deleted) article about the sex abuse of Israeli hostages in the Gaza War because it did not mention the topic at hand because of WP:SYNTH, but then also rewriting the lead of an article to make it seem more pro-Palestine. I have not used synth when rewriting articles since then. I also have extensive experience with reviewing lists and articles for SYNTH in the quality-checking processes that I participate in (FLC and GAN). I was being incivil previously. This is not something that I did solely inside of ARBPIA; I did this in other topics as well. This was because I was a new editor, and not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. I have improved from this behavior, as evidenced with my interactions with User:Denisaptr. While User:Denisaptr reported me for my continued breaches of my topic ban, I remained civil most of the time. Once, in the beginning, I did use sarcasm, but I did not repeat this behavior after that one incident. I have participated in discussions about contentious topics (such as at WP:RSN discussion on Zee News) Since my topic ban, I have also participated in topics which I care more about than the Arab-Israeli conflict, those being socialism and Eastern Europe, while adhering to all Wikipedia guidelines (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Kampuchea, Talk:Communist_state#Requested_move_23_December_2025, , , ) Similarly, I have participated and started discussions for the South Asia topic (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Agra religious conversions,Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_516#Firstpost, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_514#Reliability_of_Zee_News). Even when things haven't went the way I wanted them to go, I have still remained civil like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markville Secondary School, where after challenging the decision at closure review, I stopped engaging with it; at Talk:Wounded_Knee_Massacre#Massacre_infobox_or_battle_infobox; at Talk:Wounded_Knee_Massacre#Infobox_template; at Talk:Graham_Platner#Lead (I have/had limited experience with BLPs, and the things that I write about usually have too little and not too many things to say about them, so that is why my arguments were not as strong based on PAG). Also, when I new, I disregarded many policies, not just the ones on WP:BATTLEGROUND and adjacent behavior. For example here, I BLAR'd something without following proper WP:BLAR procedures. Here, I did not finish my edit within a draft or my sandbox, and implemented an unfinished edit. Here and here, I did not argue to delete these pages due to PAG, but instead I did it because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This shows that my topic ban, while it was appropriate, was not because of conduct only in a certain topic. My repeated breaches of my topic ban were because I did not think that it was appropriate; initially, I thought that a BER would have been more proportional, and later I thought that, because I had stopped engaging in the behavior that led to it, I no longer had to follow it. If I am unblocked, I will abandon my notions of the topic ban being incorrect and will adhere to it. In conclusion, my behavior has considerably improved, so I think that this block should be reconsidered.
Decline reason:
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.
Unblock request 2
editEasternShah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
I understand that @CoconutOctopus: recommended that I wait for the standard offer. I am nevertheless making this appeal because I believe there are additional considerations showing that I can return to editing constructively and without repeating the conduct that led to my sanction.
I accept that my ARBPIA topic ban was justified. The conduct identified at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive362#Easternsahara included battleground behavior, incivility, double standards, bludgeoning, bad-faith assumptions, and misuse of sourcing policy. I do not dispute that this conduct was disruptive. I also understand that an unblock would not, by itself, allow me to edit in violation of any remaining topic ban or editing restriction.
Since the topic ban, I have tried to demonstrate that the problems were behavioral issues I needed to correct, not an inability to edit constructively. Outside ARBPIA, I have continued to contribute productively. I have brought List of World Heritage Sites in Africa and List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Palestine to featured list status, brought Vau i Dejës Hydroelectric Power Station through GAN, contributed at Articles for Creation, reviewed at GAN and FLC, and created or improved a substantial number of articles. I have also participated in deletion and sourcing discussions where I have tried to apply policy rather than personal preference.
The main conduct problem was not simply that I cared about a topic, but that I approached disputes poorly. I treated disagreement too adversarially, assumed bad faith too readily, argued too much, and applied standards inconsistently. I have since worked to change that. In later discussions in contentious areas outside ARBPIA, including socialism/Eastern Europe and South Asia-related sourcing discussions, I have participated without the same battleground approach. When discussions have not gone the way I wanted, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markville Secondary School, Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre#Massacre infobox or battle infobox, Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre#Infobox template, and Talk:Graham Platner#Lead, I have accepted disagreement and disengaged rather than escalating.
I also understand better now why my earlier sourcing conduct was a problem. For example, I objected to material in one context as SYNTH while making an edit elsewhere that pushed a conclusion beyond what the sources supported. That was a double standard. Since then, I have gained more experience reviewing articles and lists at GAN and FLC, where careful attention to sourcing, weight, and original research is required. I will not use sourcing policy selectively or to advance a preferred outcome.
I also acknowledge that my earlier incivility was unacceptable. Being a newer editor may explain some of my poor judgment, but it does not excuse it. If unblocked, I will avoid sarcasm, personalizing disputes, repeated replies after my point has been made, and assumptions about other editors’ motives. If I find myself becoming frustrated, I will step away rather than continue arguing.
I am not asking for my past conduct to be overlooked. I am asking for the opportunity to edit again under the understanding that I must comply strictly with all applicable restrictions, avoid ARBPIA unless and until properly permitted to edit there, and maintain the standards of conduct I have tried to demonstrate since the sanction. I believe my conduct since the topic ban shows that I can contribute productively without returning to the battleground behavior that led to the block. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 22:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After reading this unblock request, as well as the block history and the discussion below, I agree with CoconutOctopus's recommendation that you wait at least six months before submitting another unblock request on the English Wikipedia (November 27, 2026). During this time, you are free to edit on other Wikimedia projects (as long as you're not blocked there), such as Commons or Simple Wikipedia. If you disagree with this assessment, feel free to submit another unblock request to receive feedback from another administrator. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:25, 28 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.
This is still three times too long and will likely be declined as another WP:WALLOFTEXT. --Yamla (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- I very often write in excess, but I think that, in this specific instance, I did not include any superfluous text, only enough to support my claims. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 22:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- You are welcome to leave it as-is and a different admin will review it. --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Why did you accuse me of sockpuppeting during my case with m.bitton and skitash? Are you in contact with those users? Bananakingler (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Well that case isn't resolved yet, no one's closed it. I for one think it is very suspicious how similar your activities are with Mosti's. The fact that, through technical evidence, your locations seem to be somewhat similar seems to me like it is definitive proof when combined with how similar your editing is. Yet, I am not a master of sockpuppet investigations and I trust that admins who understand it better will use their best judgement to resolve it. Also, your WP:ASPERSIONS seem to be also like those cast by Mosti as well. I am in contact with no one. I saw a new user participate in an arb case (in which I also participated) and thought it was suspicious. I then looked through your contributions and those of Mosti's. There is no reason to suspect foul play here. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah just interesting to note that it would have been useful for abusive users you share a lot with.
- Bananakingler (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Should I let abuse of multiple accounts get away just because it benefits abusive users? Pretty sure you also got topic banned from the Maghreb by ArbCom, was this not because you were also disruptive? A normal disruptive user is better than a disruptive sockpuppeteer, at least in my view. If one is to take a utilitarian mindset, I think I did the right thing. I am interested in what you think. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 21:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- You should only be using your talk page to appeal your block, not to argue with other editors. @Bananakingler, I strongly advise you drop this as well. CoconutOctopus talk 21:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Should I let abuse of multiple accounts get away just because it benefits abusive users? Pretty sure you also got topic banned from the Maghreb by ArbCom, was this not because you were also disruptive? A normal disruptive user is better than a disruptive sockpuppeteer, at least in my view. If one is to take a utilitarian mindset, I think I did the right thing. I am interested in what you think. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 21:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Well that case isn't resolved yet, no one's closed it. I for one think it is very suspicious how similar your activities are with Mosti's. The fact that, through technical evidence, your locations seem to be somewhat similar seems to me like it is definitive proof when combined with how similar your editing is. Yet, I am not a master of sockpuppet investigations and I trust that admins who understand it better will use their best judgement to resolve it. Also, your WP:ASPERSIONS seem to be also like those cast by Mosti as well. I am in contact with no one. I saw a new user participate in an arb case (in which I also participated) and thought it was suspicious. I then looked through your contributions and those of Mosti's. There is no reason to suspect foul play here. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive
edit| Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive |  |
| June 2026 Backlog Drive:
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?
Interested in taking part? You can sign up here. | |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
(This message was sent to User talk:Easternsahara and is being posted here due to a redirect.)
"MLMpM" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect MLMpM has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 26 § MLMpM until a consensus is reached. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-en
wikimedia.org).
Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.
Administrators' newsletter – June 2026
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.
Technical news
- Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)
Arbitration
- The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
- The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.
DCWC call for coordinators
edit
Hey EasternShah, it's almost that time again! The Developing Countries WikiContest will be returning for its third year, and the coordinator team is looking for experienced content contributors willing to volunteer. The coordinators are responsible for keeping the contest running and its pages—including participants' submissions, the points leaderboard, and the list of eligible articles—updated.
If you would like to apply, please contact one of the coordinators; you may choose to do so privately if you wish: Arconning (talk · email), sawyer777 (talk · email), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · email). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)