User talk:RayAdvait

Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome RayAdvait!

Your edit to Airbus A320neo family has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. BilCat (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

OK BilCat RayAdvait (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi RayAdvait! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Demography of the United Kingdom that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Changing the page title is never minor, and in this case ran contrary to previous discussion - see Talk:Demographics of the United Kingdom#Reverting rename and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 16#"Demography" being changed to "Demographics" as a section heading, which became a wider discussion. NebY (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page disruptively. PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Do not change Rajpath to Kartavya Path in articles like you did at Republic Day (India). Rajpath is the common name and should be used across wikipedia. Dhruv edits (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In May 2022 you stated 54 A321XLR are ordered by Indigo airlines. Do you have a reference for this number? WikiPate (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, please revert the edit. RayAdvait (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

ok thanks for your reply. I reverted it. WikiPate (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

At the time that the Games were opened, the now King Charles III was the Prince of Wales, not the king. Referring to him as Charles III on this page would be incorrect, as that wasn't his name at the time of the event- the fact that it's his name now is irrelevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Factions in the Republican Party (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Fitzpatrick. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed it from Brian Fitzpatrick to Brian Fitzpatrick (American politician) RayAdvait (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RayAdvait. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Senator Ricketts, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, RayAdvait. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Template:PD-AZGov, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, RayAdvait. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Senator Ricketts".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Your use of an image, such as the one you added to iOS, was not under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, would you please take a look at your recent edits of Gurgaon? There's a formatting issue under the weatherbox - I would fix it, but I can't tell quite what was intended. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not able to fix the formatting issue. It would be great if you help me. RayAdvait (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South India, 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) 16:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Climate of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jammu and Kashmir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

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.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Do South Asian natives also take caution, as they are more aware about their region? RayAdvait (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, 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.

Nil🥝 05:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Compromised account?. Nil🥝 06:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is globally locked, contact cawikimedia.org for assistance. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 12 February 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been able to regain access to my account, after one of my peers borrowed my laptop for an hour for "school project work" but instead started pranking Keith Terrett. I am really sorry for the vandalism done in this article and will be more cautious next time while handing my laptop to my peers. I have had a relatively credible editing history for almost five years, please don't block me just for a recent spam incident. You can try blocking りっきー様, and ~2026-95386-2, as they are some of the people intentionally part of the prank. If you view their editing history, they joined only to edit Keith Terrett, and are not truly committed editors. I hope you understand my request, and unblock me. Wikipedia has always held a place in my heart, as a collective place to share information for all, and the recent block on me has left me extremely disheartened as I was really passionate about editing and adding information about topics that interest me, and a silly prank by some ill-mannered peers led to me no longer being able to edit, was extremely unfair for something I didn't even do.

Decline reason:

Per discussion below. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 13 February 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 story doesn't hold water, as it happened more than once. These edits two weeks before were also completely inappropriate . So was this in mid-December .

And after your account vandalized Weather , you immediately reverted it with the edit summary sorry my friend stole my computer but then the account went on to vandalize Terrett's article (the last diff) just 13 minutes later.

So if what you say is true, you let your account be compromised on four separate occasions across two months. You clearly knew about it, and neither took steps to secure your account, nor to notify anyone about your account being compromised. Even in the best case scenario, in which your story is accepted as 100% truth, you acted in a grossly negligent manner, and made not the slightest effort to mitigate damage done to the biography of a living person that was caused by your negligence.

If you'd like the best chance of an admin considering an unblock now or in the future, I strongly urge you to directly address these very serious issues. Even with a good unblock request, this will be a problem, as there's a pretty high bar for compromised accounts to be unblocked. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

But these edits have only been occuring since December. Look at my previous history, do you see any vandalism. Is it ok if I create a new account where I can make a fresh start, where my peers wouldn't have knowledge about the account. RayAdvait (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

No, that would be block evasion. You, the person, are blocked, which means you're not currently allowed to edit English Wikipedia on any account, from any computer, from anywhere in the world, for any reason. The only exception is constructive edits on this talk page. Even if you are telling the truth, that would mean there were four separate incidents of vandalism after your account was compromised over two months that you did nothing about until you were blocked. That is four too many incidents and two months too long; it's truly disturbing that you think this happening for only two months is a point in your favor. It's certainly not a case of one of my peers borrowed my laptop for an hour for "school project work" as you claim. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I have repeatedly tried. One of them they borrowed but lied to me about the reason, as mentioned earlier. One of them used AnyDesk, the remote desktop application to use my computer while I was away. AnyDesk is installed by our school IT department, and those peers managed to access my computer by finding out the administrator password in our school's intranet, which allowed them to access AnyDesk. Since I am the only actual editor in my grade, they thought it would be fun to try and get me blocked, which they unfortunately did. Their edits on their own accounts mentioned earlier were just to prank Keith Terrett, not me. Disciplinary action has been taken by our school against these students, so I can assure you this will not be happening ever again. If there is any oath or anything else required, I am more than willing to do that. As I have said earlier, Wikipedia has always been an unconventional, yet special passion for me, and this block has been particularly saddening for something I love doing. RayAdvait (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a compromise which I hope we can agree on. The compromise is that, my account is unblocked, however my extended confirmed rights are removed for six months (a monitoring period for administrators). If no vandalism occurs for six months, my extended confirmed rights can be reinstated, if vandalism occurs, then my account is immediately blocked indefinitely like now. Feel free to extend the 6 month period to 8 months, 10 months, a year, or even more. All I want are my editing rights back. RayAdvait (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Either your account was compromised, in which case we cannot trust that it is actually you saying you have regained access, or it was not compromised, in which case the vandalism was in fact directly and deliberately from you and we've heard "it wasn't actually me" before. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's suppose everything RayAdvait said were true for the sake of argument. In that case, has RayAdvait done anything wrong other than on one instance sharing their computer with people who they thought were friends. By itself, that seems a bit thin for an indeffable offense, especially one that you seem to think one can't ever come back from. There's nothing they could possibly have done about their school IT department being hacked. Now, I do agree that there are parts of this that are awfully convenient and undisprovable. But at least in theory a CheckUser could, again assuming things were true, prove parts of this story (including that RayAdvait's school "friends" aren't the ones making this unblock request) by determining that, for example, that all of the vandal edits come from a school IP address and that the edits to this talk page requesting unblock came from a non-school IP address (to be clear, I am not a CheckUser, and have not seen any private data). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

In this case, if RayAdvait's story is true, if you look at the December 17 edits, Weather was vandalized, RayAdvait reverted it one minute later saying "sorry my friend stole my computer." At that moment, they knew their account was compromised and did absolutely nothing about it, either then or anything to prevent their computer from again being hijacked 13 minutes later to commit more vandalism.

So now we have to believe that knowing they had a compromised computer, RayAdvait actively chose to do nothing to resolve their computer being hacked for two months. Nor did they notify Wikipedia in any way. Not after more vandalism on January 29th. This story is only presented after a block, and not even immediately: the first story appears to give off that the laptop was loaned away for an hour (despite the fix to vandalism coming one minute later) and it was a one-time thing. Only after it was pointed out that there were more instances of vandalism from the account, did the story change to this AnyDesk hacking. I already filed an SPI request earlier today, in the hopes of information that would clarify things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, right, good point. Yeah, I can think of no good-faith explanation for that - even my comment above was pushing the limits of optimism. I'm declining this request; this is clearly going nowhere * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if @Keithterrett regularly checks in. We might have an unusual example of an article subject who might be able to directly provide insight into vandalism of their article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I talked to Keith Terrett about this, he is our secondary school brass & woodwind instrument teacher, he actually laughed about the edit, where he was mentioned as "Nigerian" for some reason, he just checked if any admin/moderator reverted it, and I informed that you guys reverted it. RayAdvait (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hearing from the source is very different than you reporting what the source said. Presumably, he could confirm parts of the story that you have claimed, such as disciplinary action taken against students for hacking into your computer (without naming any specific people in order to avoid WP:OUTING). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think he would know about that, as that was taken by other teachers not him, he only teaches brass and woodwind instrument, and our school's H.O.D. of music, nothing else. RayAdvait (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I know teachers and my significant other is a teacher. The idea that teachers wouldn't be aware of severe disciplinary actions against students at the school, especially when the offense involved public defamement of that teacher, is absolutely ludicrous.

I'm going to be absolutely direct with you: at no point in this incident has your story been consistent, either with the facts that are on the record or with the story itself. That story has changed considerably as holes have been pointed out in it. And it also has changed in an implausible way, with an almost cartoonish scenario described in your latest version of events. That cartoonish scenario is also quite inconsistent with how you've portrayed this incident, and inconsistent with how you've behaved.

At this point, the biggest unanswered question I have is whether your story is completely made up, or simply large parts of it. Hopefully, if you take the WP:OFFER and come back for an unblock in six months or a year or five years with an edit history on another project, we'll get something that sounds like the full, real story. Because, frankly, the story of a kid who thought he made harmless vandalism edits and then panicked when caught, would have been a far more sympathetic tale, and I believe much closer to reality than what we've gotten. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Severe action was not taken, only moderate action was taken. RayAdvait (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Scolding was given with an ultimatum, if further incidents like this occur then suspensions will happen. RayAdvait (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If the story you said were true, one in which you were physically threatened by bullies in the bathroom, and forced to defame a teacher against your will with the threat of bodily harm, and your school laptop was hacked by these same people, with the administrative password being seized and under control of the bullies, the result wouldn't have been simply a "scolding."

This has cleared any remaining doubts from my head that there's little truth behind the things you have said here. Anyways, I have no further advice that can help you, so I wish you well, in whatever you do next, whether or not that involves Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Whatever it is, can we please do the option to tban from BLPs, as suggested by @Nil NZ. I have a credible history of over 1200 edits, you can check, it has been really clean, until that point in Dec. So what I can do is tell those peers that my account got blocked so that they won't force me to edit anything, while secretly working towards my rehabilitation and unblocking on Wikipedia. Currently I have started doing some constructive edits on Simple Wikipedia, it was suggested by a non-administrator comment. RayAdvait (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

That will be up to a reviewing administrator to evaluate. If you asked me, I'd say that I think the best outcome for English Wikipedia would be for you to continue to be blocked until you're both considerably more mature and willing to tell the whole truth. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

So who are reviewing admins, if you know any can you pls ask them to review. RayAdvait (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You do not have an active unblock request, so there's nothing for anyone to review right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

So what happened to the request I put earlier. Also please read the thread below. It will give more clarity about the incident. RayAdvait (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You did have an unblock request earlier. If you scroll up and look at it, you can see it was declined on the 13th and why. If you would like this block reviewed, you need to make a new unblock request. I'd recommend you be completely honest in the unblock request, as non-constructive unblock requests can lead to talk page access being revoked. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

What should I include in the request? RayAdvait (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:GAB details the elements of a successful reblock. I recommend being fully honest. if you make another request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

alright RayAdvait (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

And also the IT department changed the pwd. Btw the kids were rich, its kinda hard to take action against them, without there parents starting to complain, and you know in India, private schooling is a huge business. RayAdvait (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

And almost all IB schools are private, with pretty high fees. RayAdvait (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

At the end of the day, this is India, and if you know even a bit about how this country works, everything runs on some form of corruption, it's sad but it's true. I am not trying to defame India, I still love my country. If you live in a country with a large Indian diaspora, just ask anyone they will tell you the same thing. RayAdvait (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Can we do the option to tban from BLPs, as suggested by @Nil NZ. RayAdvait (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

As the editor who reported RayAdvait, I'd love to give them the benefit of the doubt; they have a five year history with 1200+ constructive edits, which is why I was so surprised to see this behaviour. I'd love to see a path forward where they are unblocked; if their account was compromised, then let's make sure it doesn't happen again, and if it was instead just a case of dumb teenage shenanigans, then we have the standard offer or the option to tban from BLPs.

The set of edits that would be most telling through CU goggles (I imagine) are the 17 December set:

• 17:56 UTC they vandalise Weather
• 17:57 UTC they self-revert, with the edit summary sorry my friend stole my computer
• 20:10 UTC they vandalise Keith Terrett
• 20:11 UTC they again self-revert.

A CU may be able to tell if the vandalism is happening from a different device/session than the reverts, which would give credence to Ray's story. Nil🥝 03:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for lying, I thought I would get through it by getting unblocked, but I am not the kind of person that always give white lies (I can't sleep if I tell lies), so now I will tell the truth about every vandal edit that has occured. All times will be given in Indian Standard Time, as that's where I live, feel free to convert to UTC if required. Please don't block me.

12:26, 17 December 2025 and all other 17 December edits - Was actually done by a friend, who didn't have an account earlier, but now has the account りっきー様. I took the laptop back and wrote sorry my friend stole my computer.

Now from 18 December - 18 January was our school's winter break so only constructive edits were made during this period.

Next series of vandalism was on 29 January on Keith Terrett.

This was done by me entirely and I am really so sorry, it was a forced bet to this otherwise they would beat me up in the washroom, and I am not a strong person, as you can tell I am very nerdy person, not the kind of person who would want to get into these shenanigans, but I was forced to.

Next series was on 12 February, which involved various other temporary accounts.

This is the one when "one of my peers borrowed my laptop for an hour for "school project work"" case applies.

Please don't block me, its really saddening. I promise I will never do this ever again. Please accept the compromise of extended confirmed rights removed for six months. @Nil NZ, you know my credible edit history. Please reinstate my account, I can and will do anything for it, its like my personal jewel that no one knew about until December, I have made over a 1000 edits with extremely high credibility. I am also ok with the standard offer if my compromise is not accepted. RayAdvait (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, can I take the standard offer for six months atleast. RayAdvait (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Please remove the sockpuppetry tag from my user page. りっきー様 is a classmate, and he is japanese, and i am indian, and I don't know a single word of japanese apart from Konichiwa, sayonara, and Arigato, and I can't even edit my user page, which is unfair, I should at bare minimum be able to do that. The reason why the IP Address is appearing the same as we both used the school's wifi during a free period. RayAdvait (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The problem we have now is that we know you've not been honest about your edit history when given the opportunity, which makes it difficult to trust what you say now. I can't foresee the tag being removed whilst you're blocked because the connection has just been confirmed by a Checkuser investigation, but your friend can appeal under their own account if they wish.

There's also the issue that others can apparently coerce you into vandalising Wikipedia, which puts both you and Wikipedia at risk if you're unblocked. We can't confirm 100% what you say, we can only see what you (or those account) does and that's why you're blocked - IMO the risk of further disruption to Wikipedia is just too high for now. You've unfortunately made some poor decisions and you'll need to deal with the consequences, although they don't have to be permanent.

With all this in mind, it looks like the Standard offer is probably your best way forward - especially in view of the Checkuser confirmation.

Go for six months without editing Wikipedia under any account then submit a new appeal. I'm not sure if it could be accepted under this account since it's considered compromised, but we can cross that bridge whenever you appeal.

You're free to edit other projects, which would go a long way to show you can be trusted long-term and bolster any future appeal.

Simple English Wikipedia is often suggested for this purpose; be aware that you will be on a short leash and only get one strike before being blocked on that project, as they often have editors who are blocked on other projects & working towards their rehabilitation, so they need to be strict with those cases. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

So I guess, I'll just keep my editing private so that no one really knows about it so that they cant coerce into doing it, I'll tell them I'm blocked indefinetely so that they can't force me, and I can work towards rehabilitation. RayAdvait (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That sounds like a good plan. Keep working on Simple Wikipedia in your own time, don't discuss it with anyone else you don't trust, then submit a new appeal in six months or so.

That will hopefully give you time to move to a new friend group or distance yourself from whatevers going on socially/at school, and show admins that you can keep your account safe long-term and edit responsibly.

I wouldn't re-appeal for now because you need time to get that evidence together and nothing substantial has changed since your last appeal, so it will likely just be declined again. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)