Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks

Understand what you did and why you have been blocked

If the reviewing administrator concludes that the block was justified, you will not be unblocked unless they are convinced that you understand what you are blocked for, and that you will not do it again.

You are informed about the block reason in two ways: the blocking administrator will provide a brief reason that you will see when you try to make an edit, and may also leave a message explaining your block on your user talk page. These messages should include the names of any policies and guidelines that the blocking administrator believes you have violated.

Before you make an unblock request, you should carefully read the policies and guidelines named in your block reason. You may also wish to review the blocking policy. If you have read these pages and still don't fully understand why you were blocked, your first step might be to request a clearer explanation. Attempts to work with others and understand their concerns are viewed positively. Alternatively, dismissing concerns and refusing to accept feedback and criticism is not.

Give a good reason for your unblock

1. State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or why you are asking for reconsideration. It is not enough to just say that the block was "wrong" or "unfair", or justify your actions by saying that another user violated a policy first. You must explain why it was wrong to block you, or why it should be reversed.
2. Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct. You should either explain why the block reason is incorrect or not applicable to your conduct, or that you understand why you were blocked and won't do it again.
3. Give evidence. If you state that you did or did not do something, please provide brief details and links in the form of diffs or other evidence.

Stick to the point

1. Be brief.
2. Stay calm and civil. The use of profanities, ramblings, ALL CAPS SCREAMING and personal attacks will lead to the decline of your unblock request, and may lead to you losing access to your talk page.
3. Provide key information briefly. If a mistake has happened, show actual evidence or explain it (briefly). Do not make vague claims or allege conspiracies or bad faith unless you have clear, high-quality evidence in the form of diffs.
4. Focus on the concerns of the blocking admin and the situation going forward. Show that you understand the blocking administrator's concern and what they want you to do differently. Blocks happen because the community has to prevent certain behaviors. If you show willingness to accept our concerns, discuss the incident in good faith, genuinely learn from mistakes, and show you can keep to the spirit of community policies, often that is all that's needed. If the community still doesn't agree and the block isn't lifted, you will be seen positively when it's over for showing maturity, accepting the outcome, and showing that you are willing to abide by consensus.

Agree to follow Wikipedia community customs

If you are blocked for something you did wrong, you are more likely to be unblocked if you:

1. Admit to it. All your contributions to Wikipedia are logged. There is no point in denying something that you did do, because your edits can and will be checked. Even if they were deleted, all administrators, including the one who will answer your unblock request, are still able to see it.
2. Give people a reason to trust you again. Promise, credibly, that you will stop doing whatever got you blocked. Earn back our trust by proposing improvements to articles or proposing firm steps you will take so the issue cannot happen again.
3. Don't do it again. If you were blocked for an offensive statement or legal threat, do not repeat it in your unblock request. Even if you feel that your conduct did not deserve a block, evidently at least one administrator disagrees with you on that point. Assume that the reviewing administrator would agree with the block, and write your request in a way that cannot give further offense.
4. Tell us why you are here. Say how you intend to help contribute to the encyclopedia after you are unblocked. The community portal and the task center contain ideas for helpful contributions.

If unsatisfied despite everything

In most cases, if others disagree with your request then it's best to accept it. Do not "rant", "flame" or attack others even if you feel attacked yourself. It is the worst thing you can do.

If you have good cause for worrying, it is far better to check you have briefly and calmly made clear your concern and any evidence, and just ask for other independent opinions. Administrators asked to independently review a matter will come to it fresh, and may be able to explain or help. They will also consider whether or not the blocking admin appears to have acted reasonably, and what they think should happen next. If they disagree with you, this can be useful reassurance that the initial view was not unreasonable.

Examples of bad unblock requests

Requests that look like the examples shown below are likely to be denied. If made repeatedly, they may lead to your block being extended or removal of talk page access.

Using the Unblock Wizard

If you are still not sure about how to compose your unblock request, or editing wikicode scares you, you may want to use the Unblock Wizard. This wizard will prompt you to choose the situation that fits your block the closest, and provide you with a series of questions to answer about your editing. Your answers will automatically be combined into an unblock request and posted on your talk page. These are questions that administrators are likely to need answers to in order to process your request. Most questions are required, and are marked with an asterisk (*), while some are optional and depend on your specific situation.

Please remember that this is a tool that will help you know what to answer, not an oracle that will generate your request for you! Like any other unblock request, you should write the answer to each question in your own words, without using a large language model such as ChatGPT or any other form of artificial intelligence.

Arbitration enforcement blocks

Special rules apply to users who have been blocked because they violated an Arbitration Committee decision, or restrictions imposed on them (such as under contentious topics procedure) by administrators in accordance with an Arbitration Committee decision.

Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

1. ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

• The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
• The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

• a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
• a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
• a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

A reviewing administrator acting alone, therefore, is not allowed to undo another administrator's arbitration enforcement block. (This does not preclude the blocking administrator from accepting an unblock request from the blocked editor.)

To request that such a block be lifted, you may:

• Address your appeal to the blocking administrator either on your talk page or by email (using the "Email this user" function on their talk page).
• Address your appeal to either the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or the administrators' noticeboard by using the {{unblock}} template, asking the reviewing administrator to initiate a community discussion. You should prepare the appeal in the form provided by the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} on your talk page, below the unblock request, so that the reviewing administrator may simply copy it to the appropriate community forum.
• Address your appeal to the Arbitration Committee by sending an email to Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Banned users

The procedures of ban appeal can be found at Wikipedia:Banning policy § Review and reversal of bans.

• Users banned by the community or banned for repeated abuse of multiple accounts (but not under ArbCom bans or blocks designated to be appealed to ArbCom only) are normally unbanned only after a community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard finds consensus to lift the ban. You should read Wikipedia:Standard offer before appealing a community ban.
• Users banned by the Arbitration Committee must appeal to the Committee (normally by sending email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org.) For users also under community sanction, ArbCom usually consults the community either at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard or as an amendment request. The ban will not be lifted without sufficient community comment.
• Users banned by Jimbo Wales prior to April 2022 must appeal to the Arbitration Committee.

Compromised accounts

Sometimes administrators or CheckUsers block an account as compromised. This happens most often when CheckUsers have proof that the person who created the account has lost access to it, and it is now controlled by another person. If your account was blocked specifically as a "compromised account", you should contact a CheckUser or steward, who can hopefully verify that you are now back in control. You can also ask a Wikipedian who has met you outside of Wikipedia to vouch for you, or you could use a previously disclosed {{committed identity}}. If none of these options are available, the account might simply be unrecoverable because we have no way of knowing who is in control of it.

If your account is locked by stewards as compromised, the case is usually forwarded to the Trust and Safety team to investigate and once the rightful owner of the account is contacted, return the account to them. Please contact cawikimedia.org if you cannot log in as a result of compromise.

Claiming in an unblock request that your account was compromised or hacked generally will not work, because if true the account would need to remain blocked as a matter of security (regardless of any other reasons why the account was blocked) since we have no way of knowing who is in control of it. As such, requests that claim an account was compromised are normally declined on sight and you will often be instructed to not make any further unblock requests (sometimes phrased as "this account is no longer eligible for unblock consideration"). You will need to verify your identity as the true original account holder (more details) before any further consideration will be given, and even if successful at verification you will then also need to address any other reasons for the block as well. Note that you should not create a new account unless explicitly instructed to do so; this will often be considered block evasion and will hurt your chances of successfully getting the initial block removed.

Sockpuppetry blocks

Violations of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy results in many blocks. Sockpuppetry blocks may be based on a number of factors, including technical data and obvious behavioral evidence. Sockpuppeteers aren't often unblocked—since they've acted dishonestly, it's hard to believe them.

If you actually are guilty of sockpuppetry and want to get a second chance at editing, you may take the standard offer by doing as follows:

1. Refrain from making any edits to the English Wikipedia, using any account or anonymously, for at least six months. You are strongly encouraged to make significant and useful contributions to other Wikimedia projects prior to appealing.
2. Make the unblock request from your original account.

If you appeal a meatpuppetry block or a sockpuppetry block that you believe was made in error, you should disclose all information that might be relevant or might help explain why the community suspects sockpuppetry—for example, if you were encouraged to edit a Wikipedia page on social media or by a friend, if you share an internet connection with others whom you know edit Wikipedia, or if you were paid to edit Wikipedia. Failing to divulge relevant information may be considered an attempt to intentionally deceive the community and its administrative processes.

See also guides for appealing CheckUser blocks and bans for repeated abuse of multiple accounts.

Oversight blocks

In some rare circumstances, material that is added to Wikipedia is considered to be problematic enough that it is removed from Wikipedia's public archives and suppressed from administrator view, a process known as "oversight" or "suppression". Editors blocked as an "oversight block" (usually marked by the {{oversight block}} tag within the block reason) should appeal their block to the Arbitration Committee by emailing arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

Edit warring blocks

Many established users who request unblock do so because they have been blocked for edit warring. They often post lengthy explanations, with many linked diffs, of why they did not actually violate the three-revert rule. If this is what you intend to do, be advised that such unblock requests often take longer to review than others. Given that many edit warring blocks are for a short duration, long and detailed unblock requests may go unanswered or take so long to investigate that the block would expire on its own. Also, be aware that 3RR is seen as an "electric fence" and that—with rare exceptions—most admins see any violation of the three-revert rule as justifiably blockable. Being "right" is not an exception to the three-revert rule.

Also, be aware that there are many situations in which it is possible to be blocked for edit warring even if you did not break the three revert rule. For example, if you have made the same revert a large number of times over a long period, you may be blocked even if there was never a period of 24 hours in which you made four reverts. Also, any sequence of edits that violates the "spirit", if not the "letter", of the three-revert rule are just as worthy of a block. Intentionally gaming the system by waiting 24 hours before your fourth revert, or subtly changing your version each time so it is not a perfect revert, or otherwise edit warring over the article is seen to be editing in bad faith, even if you did not revert more than three times in 24 hours.

"Bad username" blocks

Accounts with usernames that do not conform to the username policy may be blocked regardless of their editing behavior. Most such accounts are soft-blocked, meaning a new account may be created while the old one is blocked. This is done because it is the account name, not the behavior of the person behind it, that is the problem. If your account has been soft-blocked, you may either create a new account or request a change in username. An account with a username that uses hateful or obscene language or otherwise indicates disruptive or provocative intent will be hard blocked, meaning that an unblock request will be required.

Advertising-only accounts

Accounts that seem to exist only to promote somebody or something ("spamming") are normally indefinitely blocked, because Wikipedia may not be used for promotional purposes. Such promotion may include posting articles that read like advertisements or inserting inappropriate links to other websites.

As an advertising-only account, you will not be unblocked unless you indicate that you will stop your promotional activities. In addition, you must convince administrators that you intend to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia that are unrelated to the subject of your promotion if unblocked. To do so, your unblock request should include specific examples of productive edits that you would like to make.

Blocks directed at a problem generally ("collateral damage")

A number of blocks exist because they are preventing abuse from a given source, such as a proxy server or a particular ISP used by many people. In such cases some users are responsible for the problem; others may be unavoidably blocked by the solution.

An administrator or checkuser will investigate and consider whether it is likely this has happened.

Global blocks

A Global block can be disabled on the English Wikipedia by any English Wikipedia administrator via Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist. As a global block prevents the use of your English Wikipedia talk page, it must be appealed via the Unblock Ticket Request System.