You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this block has been downgraded following an appeal to the Arbitration Committee; please use an {{unblock}} to request an unblock from the community. Questions or concerns about the specific content that led to the block being assumed as an {{Oversightblock}} should be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Primefac

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac: Is this a normal block now, or does this need to be copied over to AN? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not need to be copied over to AN. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I'm asking the admin community to review my block, following the decision by ArbCom to downgrade my oversight block to a BLP indef with talk page access. This appeal has three parts in which I intend to explain what led to the block, how I will avoid this occurring in the future, and what productive contributions I would make instead. My block was caused by a situation whose details are under WP:OS, hence I'll only give a general summary. My mistake was the naming of a WP:BLP1E individual person who was not noteworthy, which is against WP:BLPNAME. I made the wrong judgement because I saw some newspaper articles writing their name in full, but that did not change the fact that WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPNAME mean we should not name living people who are only noteworthy due to a single event. Also I am aware that there has been a recent RfC on this topic. I intend to avoid such conduct reoccurring by regularly reading WP:BLP to remind myself of the policy, and by not naming people noteworthy for only one event (as per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPNAME). I understand policies and guidelines may change in the future and I intend on accepting and adhering to them. I regret causing disruption to the project. I believe I am still capable of making productive contributions, including about living people. As an example I have practiced writing a sample article in my sandbox over at Simple English Wikipedia: simple:User:Wumbolo/sandbox/Kyle Hanagami. I understand that it takes time to regain trust from the community. That's why I am fully willing to accept a BLP topic ban to demonstrate I can contribute productively in other areas as well. wumbolo ^^^ 09:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See the discussion below. JBW (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: is this general description of what occurred accurate? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will unblock you if you agree to an indefinite topic ban, appealable to the community after one year, from all edits related to BLPs, broadly construed, as a condition of being unblocked. I note that your previous topic bans from post-1932 American politics and Andy Ngo remain in place. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Thank you for your offer, and I intend to accept it. However, I would first like to request a clarification on whether the following would be acceptable under the TBAN:

1. citing sources authored by living persons as required by WP:V;
2. attributing claims to living authors as required by WP:YESPOV.

I'm asking for these clarifications so I don't accidentally violate my TBAN. Thank you again for considering my request. wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits would be acceptable so long as the edits are otherwise unrelated to BLPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Thank you for the clarification and for the opportunity to return to WP. I accept your offer and agree to an indef BLP TBAN as agreed. I understand my previous TBANs remain in effect. Happy New Year! wumbolo ^^^ 10:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have accepted the conditions that Voorts laid down for unblocking, and those conditions are narrower than I would have required, so I see no reason to keep you waiting for Voorts to get back. I am therefore very happy to unblock you. (Normally I would consult the blocking administrator, but in this case he is no longer an administrator, and hasn't edited since 2024, so there's no point in pursuing that.) JBW (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this slipped off my radar. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again after unblock. Will you ever come back t vital articles projext Wumbulo? Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]