User talk:LesIie

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Hi there, I was blocked over a month ago. I am aware that a number of major offences led to my blocking, including the use of an LLM to find content (Deepseek AI) which subsequently led to source fabrication and therefore dishonestly and misrepresentation to accept full responsibility for my actions and share what I've learnt since, not to argue with the block or offer justifications. I didn't completely understand the potential risks when I used an AI tool to assist with editing. I started an article and was incredibly careless in presenting the phoney sources it produced as authentic. I foolishly used these fake sources and an editor familiar with the subject noticed. In retrospect, I realise that I went against WP:V by caring more about writing verification. That was careless behaviour by me and it ultimately, and rather rightfully, led to my block. I have never and will never create any secondary accounts to intervene in and disrupt the website, for obvious reasons. However one of the reasons for my block was a case of 'sockpuppetry', this was also real, it was done to give myself a user award. The admins said it was 'minor' but now I disagree. It was dishonest, damaged my credibility, and looking back, it comes under deception. It does not matter why I made the account, it is still serious. I admit that choice was bizarre and honestly hard for me to understand now, and I regret it. I've been reading and learning about the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SOCK, and WP:AI policies. I now completely see why what I did went against Wikipedias policies and more importantly, how to change my behaviour. I also read the blocking admin's last comment [1], in which they hoped I would open up more instead of being kicked out for this. I wish i took the opportunity there and then to properly address everything instead of staying silent in fear. I am truly sorry and I'm willing to work under limitations like these if it fosters trust: -Avoiding all use of any Ai or LLMs, regardless of purpose (They definitely backfire.) -Having my edits reviewed for a time. -Abiding by any mentorship or terms. I miss being part of this website, and I want to return as someone who helps the encyclopedia. If given another chance, I’ll make it my absolute goal to improve, improve and improve, not just articles and information, but myself and my integrity. Apologies if this was a lot to read, this is my first time appealing. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my request. Sincerely, LesIie

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Pinging in Abecedare as a sort of co-blocking admin, along with Lt.gen.zephyr and Worldbruce, who were part of the discussion and the cleanup. PhilKnight, I don't see any reason to demand the standard offer right out of the gate. The appeal is definitely off to the right start, and they waited instead of trying to appeal right away. (Any socks? I hope not - but if so, then yes, straight to the standard offer, I'd say.) I think "avoiding all use of any AI or LLMs" should be an unblock condition for sure. I don't tend to like Template:Second chance, as I think it's typically too hard to follow, but LesIie has experience creating articles from scratch, so it might be a good option here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I used checkuser and didn't see any block evasion or socks. PhilKnight (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Leslie deserves a second chance. Since he have promised to avoid using LLM or AI, they could get an unblock. But I think they should get mentored under an experienced editor for a while, to understand the policies in a better way. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I'm willing to take them as a mentee if needed – Leslie, don't hesitate to ping me if you have any questions about Wikipedia stuff, including during the {{2nd chance}} process (which I agree would be a good thing, if only to train you to write without LLM assistance).
@Asilvering, what do you think? Is the topic ban necessary as an unblock condition, or is the second chance enough? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't insist on an IPA tban, or an Indian milhist tban, since the issues were with the way the edits were done (with LLMs, past 1RR) rather than for something like pov-pushing or assuming bad faith. But I'll leave that up to the unblocking admin. -- asilvering (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a tban isn't a necessary apriory here. I remember the user enaging in bad faith LLM and sourcing at Talk pages (e.g. Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Contentious edits), along with the abuse of reverts to POVPUSH certain dubious additions made by them. I wouldn't be surprised if meat puppetry or off-wiki coordination are underway as well: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Offwiki targetting (editors with a significant overlap; edit: further looking into the public evidence of the off-wiki abuse [as noted at ANI] I have a very strong reason to believe that meat puppetry or abusive off-wiki coordination has indeed happened/is happening here, specifically linking it to the user here may fall under WP:DOX so refraining). Gotitbro (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro, if you have concerns about this editor that you can't share for privacy reasons, please contact arbcom with them (and mention that the editor is currently requesting an unblock, so the issue is timely). There's not really anything they can credibly say in their defence here, so it's not fair to leave an accusation like that hanging in the air. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the user should deserve an unblock. Especially when there’s someone even offering to mentor him and make sure that he doesn’t repeat his mistakes again. VirtualVagabond (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the disruption by the editor (LLMs, socking and other badfaith editing) followed in the milhist area of the sanctioned Wikipedia:ARBIPA space and a topic ban as such needs to be a prior condition here. Gotitbro (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

[edit]

Hello @asilvering (and others), I hope you are all doing well. Thank you for the time and consideration you have placed upon my request. Just checking in to see if you're close to a decision or if there's anything else you need from me. I'm happy to help however I can. Thanks again. LesIie (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Administrators, like all other Wikipedia users, are volunteers. There are a limited number of active admins and they are spread thin with all sorts of tasks. Since your unblock request is just one of many more in the queue of unblock requests, it may take time before it is reviewed. Unblock requests are not reviewed in any particular order, and there is no time frame promised. It might take several days or even weeks - until then, there's nothing for you to do except wait your turn. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LesIie, I'm sorry this was just closed without action. (I wish we didn't have that decline reason at all, honestly.) As the blocking admin, it's not right for me to decline an unblock, and I don't think I should be the final word on any kinds of editing restrictions in your case, so I don't want to unilaterally lift the block either. In one of my earlier responses, I suggested that you might be a good candidate for {{2ndchance}}. Do you want to try that? You could write your 2ndchance "submission" and then ask for an unblock, rather than having to wait for another admin to decline your next unblock request and tell you to do that. -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hamid Khan (general)

[edit]

Current content under this section: [2]

[edit]

As head of the army and the military operations during the war,[17][18][19] Hamid Khan played a central role in directing Pakistan's Western front campaigns.[20] He oversaw the launch of Operation Chengiz Khan,[21] a preemptive strike on Indian airbases, aimed at crippling Indian airpower and initiating hostilities. Despite extensive planning, the operation inflicted only limited damage.

On the Western front, General Hamid Khan commanded key offensives, including the assault towards Ferozepur and ordered the offensive in Chhamb under Major General Iftikhar Janjua, which resulted in territorial gains. He also directed the attempted advance towards Longewala, though this effort was ultimately repelled by Indian forces.[22] Hamid Khan oversaw the II Corps offensive into the Indian state of Punjab.

The plan involved advancing from Bahawalnagar towards Bhatinda and Ludhiana. Under his directive, major elements of the 1st Armored Division began mobilization on December 15, 1971. Small advancements were made by Pakistani troops. However, due to subsequent orders to halt movements, the offensive was delayed and ultimately did not proceed before the ceasefire on December 17, 1971.[4] His leadership during the conflict, while marked by bold initiatives, has been subject to scrutiny in post-war analyses.[23][24]

To any reviewers, please note that in some sources used, the subject is referred to as 'Hameed' instead of 'Hamid'.

Proposed edition:

[edit]

As the De facto[a] Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, General Abdul Hamid Khan played a key role during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, particularly in the Western theatre campaigns, as he led the army and was based in Rawalpindi. Unlike his divisional leadership during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, General Khan headed the Army GHQ which, according to Agha Humayun Amin, had decided to engage mainly defensively[4] Much of his activities during the war with India remained unknown outside the Pakistan Armed Forces.[5]

Command in the West

[edit]

On 30 November 1971, Abdul Hamid Khan met with Pakistani president Yahya Khan and the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General Gul Hassan Khan, where they planned and decided to authorize the launch of Operation Chengiz Khan, which occurred on 3 December 1971.[6][7] It was a series preemptive strikes conducted by the Pakistan Air Force on Indian airbases, aimed at crippling Indian airpower and initiating hostilities in the west. The operation inflicted limited damage.[8]

On the 4th of December, General Hamid Khan was seen in the operations room at the GHQ in Rawalpindi with other senior commanders and personal staff.[9] On the Western front, General Hamid Khan led key offensives. Notably, his GHQ authorized the offensive in Chhamb under Major-General Iftikhar Janjua, which resulted in territorial gains.[10] He also directed the attempted advance towards Longewala, which was described as a "favourite project" of Hamid by some sources, though there is disagreement over this claim.[11] The effort was ultimately repelled by Indian forces due to a lack of air support on the pakistani side.[12]

After the 18th division's unsuccessful advance at Longewala, Hamid Khan had split the 33rd Infantry division and spread its formations across various sectors in Sindh.[13] This decision by Hamid Khan had proved to be tactful as the Sindh was, according to Agha Humayun Amin, was highly underdefended and vulnerable to Indian exploitation.[14] Though Hamid's defensive reapproach had, supposedly, reduced Lieutenant-General Tikka Khan's scope of potential gains in India as part of a counterattack.[13]

Hamid Khan had also planned to allow India to occupy the BRB Canal so that he could launch a counter offensive by his primary strike force, the I Corps in order to secure Jammu Tawi and Poonch[15]

Around the 8th of December, General Hamid Khan was personally called on by visiting French strategist General Andre Beaufre to gain an official view of Pakistan’s military situation. Hamid tasked his staff to assist Beaufre in touring the operational areas.[16] However, Hamid Khan played a role in delaying the II Corps offensive into the Indian state of Punjab due to conflicting agreements within Army Command. This led President Yahya Khan to stall the operation.[17][18]

The II Corps offensive was to commence on the 16th of December. The plan involved advancing east from Bahawalnagar towards Bhatinda and Ludhiana.[19] Due to the need to split the 33rd division, the plan had to be revised. At 9 a.m. on 13 December, General Hamid gave his approval for launching the offensive.[20] Under his directive, major elements of the IV Corps began mobilization on 14 December along the Ravi River.[19] In addition, the 105th Brigade, which came under the II Corps, had made advances into Indian territory during the Battle of Fazilka and had repelled multiple counterattacks.[19] However, due to subsequent orders to halt movements, the offensive was delayed for 24 hours. After Yahya Khan's address to the nation on the 16th about agreeing to the ceasefire in the East, General Hamid ordered Tikka Khan to 'freeze.'[21] Ultimately, the offensive did not proceed before the ceasefire came into effect on December 17, 1971.[22][23]

Eastern Front

[edit]

General Hamid Khan was scheduled to visit East Pakistan on 2 December to review the situation, but the visit was cancelled and war commenced a day later.[24] General Hamid maintained regular communication with the eastern sector throughout the war, sending numerous signals to the Governor of East Pakistan and the Eastern Command.[25]

Lieutenant-General A.A.K. Niazi, the Commander of the Pakistani Eastern Command had initially refused to surrender despite mounting pressure and a directive by Yahya Khan.[26] Though no official order was ever issued from Islamabad, General Hamid Khan sent a message to Niazi advising to accept the proposal by the Indian Forces but formally leaving the final decision to Niazi himself.[27] Prior to this, Hamid had sent a telegram to Niazi on 10 December advising him to destroy as much military equipment as they could to avoid it falling into enemy hands.[28]

General Hamid had also sent signals to the Governor of East Pakistan, Dr. Abdul Motaleb Malik, delegating the final decision to Malik and advising him to find a political settlement or negotiate a ceasefire, with Niazi only to provide military advice.[28] Hamid's signal was percieved as a permission to surrender by the eastern garrison.[29] Governor Malik resigned after the Indian Airforce bombed the Government House in Dacca.[30][31]

According to A.A.K. Niazi, after his initial refusals to lay down arms, it was General Hamid who telephoned him on the 15th of December and ordered him to surrender to "save West Pakistan.”[32][33] The Hamoodur Rahman Commission, however, rejected this claim, noting that while General Hamid had "suggested" that Niazi accept the Indian terms of surrender, he had explicitly left the decision to Niazi.[34] The Commission concluded that Niazi had been authorised but not ordered to surrender, and dismissed his assertion that the suggestion led to the final decision.[35]

After the surrender, General Hamid was contacted by Major-General Rao Farman Ali, who informed him of alleged abuses committed by intelligence agencies and also requested Hamid to launch an investigation into the murder of a National Awami Party treasurer.[36] Hamid Khan's leadership style has been described as cautious and enigmatic. Some people have viewed his leadership as "indecisive."[37]

Notes

  1. ^ Although Abdul Hamid Khan officially held the position of Chief of Staff (CoS), formally the Deputy Commander-in-Chief, he was granted the full powers of the Commander-in-Chief. During the Bangladesh War and subsequent war with India in 1971, he effectively served as the acting Commander-in-Chief and is officially recognised as the Army’s de facto leader at the time.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Niazi, The Betrayal of East Pakistan 1998, p. 299: "Gen. Abdul Hamid. Right-hand man of Gen. Yahya and virtually the C-in-C".
  2. ^ Khan, Pakistan's Crisis in Leadership 1973, pp. 262: "General Abdul Hamid Khan, the Chief of Staff and virtually the Commander-in-Chief.".
  3. ^ "Lt-Gen Gul Hassan's memoirs — inside the GHQ during the 1971 War". Daily Times (Pakistan). 10 October 2018. General Hamid was the chief of staff (CoS). In that role, he was the de facto C-in-C since General Yahya was the president.
  4. ^ Amin, The Western Front in 1971 2002, p. 30.
  5. ^ Smith, Robert (December 9, 1971). "Old Friend of President". The New York Times. Retrieved January 10, 2025.
  6. ^ Guttman, Jon. "Lessons Learned from Operation Chenghiz Khan". HistoryNet. Retrieved 10 January 2025.
  7. ^ Mohan, Vijay. "First day of 1971 War". The Tribune. Retrieved 10 January 2025.
  8. ^ "Trying to catch the Indian Air Force napping, Yahya Khan, launched a Pakistani version of Israel's 1967 air blitz in hopes that one rapid attack would cripple India's far superior air power. But India was alert, Pakistani pilots were inept, and Yahya's strategy of scattering his thin air force over a dozen air fields was a bust!", p. 34, Newsweek, 20 December 1971
  9. ^ Ṣiddīqī, East Pakistan, the Endgame 2004, p. 204.
  10. ^ "Agreement between the Government of India and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on Bilateral Relations (Simla Agreement)". UN Peacemaker. Retrieved 2023-12-12.
  11. ^ Gill, An Atlas of the 1971 India-Pakistan War 2003, pp. 99: "There is disagreement over who ordered the attack on Jaisalmer. Gul Hassan Khan and other Pakistani writers state that the operation was a favorite project of the Chief of the Army Staff, General Abdul Hamid Khan".
  12. ^ Singh, Harvijay. "Battles that Made History – Defstrat". www.defstrat.com. Retrieved 2023-06-05.
  13. ^ a b Singh, India's Wars Since Independence 1982, p. 163.
  14. ^ Amin, The Western Front in 1971 2002, p. 49.
  15. ^ Rai, A Nation and its Navy at War 1987, p. 44.
  16. ^ Ṣiddīqī, East Pakistan, the Endgame 2004, p. 206.
  17. ^ Singh, India's Wars Since Independence 1982, p. 13.
  18. ^ Khan, Gul Hassan (1993). Memoirs of Lt. Gen. Gul Hassan Khan. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-577447-4.
  19. ^ a b c Gill, An Atlas of the 1971 India-Pakistan War 2003, p. 54.
  20. ^ Zaheer, The Separation of East Pakistan 1994, p. 402-403.
  21. ^ Singh, India's Wars Since Independence 1982, p. 164.
  22. ^ Riza, Maj Gen Shaukat (1990). The Pakistan Army 1966-71. Rawalpindi: Services Book Club.
  23. ^ Candeth, K. P. (1997). The Western front : Indo-Pakistan war, 1971. Dehra Dun, India: English Book Depot. ISBN 81-85567-35-2. OCLC 45399558.
  24. ^ Ali, How Pakistan Got Divided 2017, p. 141-142.
  25. ^ Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report, Supplementary Report 1974.
  26. ^ "Niazi surrendered on Yahya's orders". Dawn. 15 December 2003. Retrieved 19 August 2025.
  27. ^ Shawon, Ali Asif (15 December 2021). "Month of Victory: Pakistan decides to surrender". Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved 21 August 2025. December 15, 1971, marked a critical point in the Liberation War of Bangladesh as it was on this day that Pakistan decided to surrender.
  28. ^ a b Salik, Witness To Surrender 1997, p. 197.
  29. ^ Sisson & Rose, War and Secession 1990, p. 232.
  30. ^ "Forces Closing In; Gov. Malik and Aides Flee into Refuge With Red Cross". The New York Times. 15 December 1971. Retrieved 25 August 2025.
  31. ^ "Puppet Governor Malik Resigned". Daily Sun. 3 June 2025. Retrieved 25 August 2025.
  32. ^ Niazi, The Betrayal of East Pakistan 1998, p. 127-128.
  33. ^ "Evaluating Generalship: A.A.K. Niazi". Daily Times. 24 December 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2025.
  34. ^ Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report, Supplementary Report 1974.
  35. ^ Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report, Supplementary Report 1974.
  36. ^ Ali, How Pakistan Got Divided 2017, p. 223-224.
  37. ^ Khan, Pakistan's Crisis in Leadership 1973, pp. 262: "The atmosphere at the highest level in the GHQ was not suited to the conduct of a war. General Abdul Hamid Khan, the Chief of Staff and virtually the Commander-in-Chief, was the most indecisive man that the GHQ had had at any time".
Bibliography
[edit]

Unblock Request

[edit]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hello, I was blocked about 3 months ago for a couple of reasons. The main and immediate reason for my block was due to my use of LLMs in my writing. I had used ai tools to help me find information and as a result, i ended up writing dubious content and citing fabricated and hallucinated sources which the AI tools gave me. I had read some of Wikipedia's policies, mainly WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:AI. A month after being blocked, I had made an unblock request here [3]. The request, in its lead, followed up with a 'procedural decline.' I think due to it being open for over a month. The blocking admin, asilvering, had suggested I should try out template:2ndchance as I have had my fair share of creating and writing articles.

Please see [4], where i have drafted a new, much improved edition for a section (Role in the 1971 war) of the article: Abdul Hamid Khan (general), which was poorly written with little sourcing, untrue statements and even a fake book being cited. I have also substantially increased the size of the section (increased by 12,842 bytes) and have done all of the work myself without any AI or LLM assistance.

I hope that upon reviewing my work, you will be convinced that I have changed my ways and I have the potential to improve the encyclopedia and that his block is not needed anymore, Thank you for considering my request. LesIie (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, I was blocked about 3 months ago for a couple of reasons. The main and immediate reason for my block was due to my use of [[LLMs]] in my writing. I had used ai tools to help me find information and as a result, i ended up writing dubious content and citing fabricated and hallucinated sources which the AI tools gave me. I had read some of Wikipedia's policies, mainly [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:AI]]. A month after being blocked, I had made an unblock request here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LesIie#Unblock_request]. The request, in its lead, followed up with a 'procedural decline.' I think due to it being open for over a month. The blocking admin, [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], had suggested I should try out [[template:2ndchance]] as I have had my fair share of creating and writing articles. Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LesIie#Abdul_Hamid_Khan_(general)], where i have drafted a new, much improved edition for a section (Role in the 1971 war) of the article: [[Abdul Hamid Khan (general)]], which was poorly written with little sourcing, untrue statements and even a fake book being cited. I have also substantially increased the size of the section (increased by 12,842 bytes) and have done all of the work myself without any AI or LLM assistance. I hope that upon reviewing my work, you will be convinced that I have changed my ways and I have the potential to improve the encyclopedia and that his block is not needed anymore, Thank you for considering my request. [[User:LesIie|LesIie]] ([[User talk:LesIie#top|talk]]) 12:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC) [[User:LesIie|Leslie]] |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, I was blocked about 3 months ago for a couple of reasons. The main and immediate reason for my block was due to my use of [[LLMs]] in my writing. I had used ai tools to help me find information and as a result, i ended up writing dubious content and citing fabricated and hallucinated sources which the AI tools gave me. I had read some of Wikipedia's policies, mainly [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:AI]]. A month after being blocked, I had made an unblock request here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LesIie#Unblock_request]. The request, in its lead, followed up with a 'procedural decline.' I think due to it being open for over a month. The blocking admin, [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], had suggested I should try out [[template:2ndchance]] as I have had my fair share of creating and writing articles. Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LesIie#Abdul_Hamid_Khan_(general)], where i have drafted a new, much improved edition for a section (Role in the 1971 war) of the article: [[Abdul Hamid Khan (general)]], which was poorly written with little sourcing, untrue statements and even a fake book being cited. I have also substantially increased the size of the section (increased by 12,842 bytes) and have done all of the work myself without any AI or LLM assistance. I hope that upon reviewing my work, you will be convinced that I have changed my ways and I have the potential to improve the encyclopedia and that his block is not needed anymore, Thank you for considering my request. [[User:LesIie|LesIie]] ([[User talk:LesIie#top|talk]]) 12:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC) [[User:LesIie|Leslie]] |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, I was blocked about 3 months ago for a couple of reasons. The main and immediate reason for my block was due to my use of [[LLMs]] in my writing. I had used ai tools to help me find information and as a result, i ended up writing dubious content and citing fabricated and hallucinated sources which the AI tools gave me. I had read some of Wikipedia's policies, mainly [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:AI]]. A month after being blocked, I had made an unblock request here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LesIie#Unblock_request]. The request, in its lead, followed up with a 'procedural decline.' I think due to it being open for over a month. The blocking admin, [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], had suggested I should try out [[template:2ndchance]] as I have had my fair share of creating and writing articles. Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LesIie#Abdul_Hamid_Khan_(general)], where i have drafted a new, much improved edition for a section (Role in the 1971 war) of the article: [[Abdul Hamid Khan (general)]], which was poorly written with little sourcing, untrue statements and even a fake book being cited. I have also substantially increased the size of the section (increased by 12,842 bytes) and have done all of the work myself without any AI or LLM assistance. I hope that upon reviewing my work, you will be convinced that I have changed my ways and I have the potential to improve the encyclopedia and that his block is not needed anymore, Thank you for considering my request. [[User:LesIie|LesIie]] ([[User talk:LesIie#top|talk]]) 12:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC) [[User:LesIie|Leslie]] |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
If you truly understand that LLMs should not be used for articles and take appropriate steps in your improved part of the article. I believe you should be given another chance. VirtualVagabond (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users who have demonstrated knowledge in this subject area and can verify the content: @WikiEnthusiast1001, @Lt.gen.zephyr, @VirtualVagabond, @Mehedi Abedin

  • The Abdul Hamid Khan (general) sample will be helpful to administrators considering your unblock request, as an example of what you want to do. It will be a few days before I can fully examine it, but I have an initial question. You twice cite the 1998 Oxford University Press (OUP) edition of Niazi's book. You give its ISBN as 978-0-195-79275-1. That number is for the 2000 OUP 2nd printing. That may seem like a minor issue, but the problem is that the page numbers you cite, 268 and 122, don't support the material where you cite them. I suspect you didn't really use the OUP edition (either printing), but an edition published by someone else with different pagination. Can you describe where you read it? Also, did anyone, on or off Wikipedia, suggest to you that you use that "mystery" edition? --Worldbruce (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks. You're are correct, I just checked the ISBN, I guess I mistakenly pulled up the 2000 edition on Google Books assuming it was the 1998 edition. I'll get around to fixing that and ill double check each ISBN. You are also right about using a "mystery edition" and not an Oxford University Press edition. I consulted a reproduction of the book by Sani H. Panhwar: (Redacted), which may have a different pagination. No one has suggested to me to use this version, it was just the first one without a paywall I came across and I am already familiar with the reproducer. LesIie (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the linked edition and page 122 does indeed verify the claim, although it doesn't provide the 15th of December date. The rewrite looks promising – a small detail is that the wording could clarify (maybe add a comma?) that "save West Pakistan" refers to the order for surrender, not to the previous refusal. The quote on page 268 also checks out. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Yeah I'll tweak some wording wherever is felt necessary. LesIie (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are legal ways to obtain a free copy of a copyrighted book or portion thereof: through a library, Google Books, previews on a bookseller's website, archive.org, WP:TWL, and WP:RX, for example. Wikipedia trusts them to follow copyright law and to provide true and accurate copies.
Sani Panhwar, for those unfamiliar with him, is someone who has placed the full text of about 1,000 books on his personal website for anyone to download. He acknowledges on his "About Us" page that a substantial portion are protected by copyright. He is infringing copyright (and adding his own "Copyright © www.sanipanhwar.com" to works). WP:COPYLINK tells us not to link to websites that are violating copyright.
Panhwar removes the publisher's name and the copyright page from his "reproductions", so readers don't know the publisher, year, edition, or ISBN of what they are reading. Panhwar also changes the pagination! Panhwar p. 122 corresponds to Oxford University Press p. 127-128, and Panhwar p. 268 is Oxford University Press p. 299. Given that he has added, removed, and changed bibliographic information in his "reproductions", what confidence do we have that the text is a true and accurate copy? He invites the general public to contribute books to his site. Are we confident that no donor has an axe to grind that might have led them to change a word here or there?
Do you understand the verifiability problems that using Panhwar creates? You can't state the publisher, year, edition, or ISBN of the books you're using because he doesn't tell you. Your page numbers don't match the page numbers of any legitimate edition of the work. You can't link to what you're reading because it's a copyright violation. And you can't be sure what you're reading is what the author wrote. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce In light of this new information on Panhwar, I can clearly see why it is an issue to cite from his reproductions. I was completely unaware of the faults with his work and copyright infringements. That's a problem since all citations I used under Niazi's book i read from panhwar. Luckily, I have only used Panhwar for Niazi's book, as all other books I was able to locate on Internet Archive. [Archive.org] LesIie (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. While reviewing the additions, I assumed that Panhwar was another publisher, but your explanation makes a lot more sense (and is more problematic). I have removed the link from LesIie's comment per WP:COPYLINK, is revdel necessary? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user's block log entry notes a long list of red-flags and bad faith editing in contentious topics focused on deceiving others and in gaming the system. They were blocked only in June; but have since filed two unblock requests (one of which was already declined), though the WP:SO clearly instructs against filing unblock appeal before at least six months have passed. They do not even reflect on their deception and flagrant breach of sites policies (LLM use, source fabrication and misrepresentation, sockpuppetry, dishonesty), much less address them. I don't think this user's appeal should be considered before another six months, and even then they should not be unblocked without a topic ban from WP:CT/SA where they have evidently been most problematic. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBlaze Lightning, please don't leave this kind of thing on the talk page of someone who is going through an unblock. This isn't a community ban and an unblock request isn't a community discussion. If you have concerns about someone being unblocked, please use the blocking admin's talk page or email. -- asilvering (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My first unblock request was filed over a month after I was blocked (declined only due to it being open for a while), and the current one was suggested by the blocking administrator as a good candidate for 2nd chance, which is why I submitted this new one rather than waiting six months. Also, the standard offer is not compulsory to follow unless directly suggested, (It even states that in WP:SO ). Furthermore, an admin noted it was not needed in my case. I have also already given a clear explanation and reflection of my faults here [5]. I do not dispute that some of my past behaviours were serious breaches of trust, but it is important to note that I did not knowingly add untrue content and it came as a result of my use of LLMs. But I do take responsibility and see how serious it is. However, the purpose for this request is to demonstrate, rather than just try to persuade, to admins that I have become familiar with the encyclopedias policies and that I do not use LLMs, all work is verifiable and it is good-faith by drafting an improvement to a page in a topic I specialise in [6]. You are free to check it for yourself.

I assume you haven't actually read my unblock requests and my intentions. You even initially suggested [7] that I should first prove myself by editing simple wikipedia, even though this request is entirely based on a draft I have constructed. LesIie (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LesIie, if you get any more provocative comments like the one you're responding to here, feel free to ignore them. Though, for what it's worth, I do think this calm response does you credit. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft evaluation by LEvalyn

[edit]

asilvering mentioned to me that it might help with this request if someone spent some time evaluating the quality of the draft. Below is my assessment, approaching it like I would a GA source review. I checked cites 5, 16, 20, 24, 27, 29, 34, and 35. With apologies, this got a bit long, because I want to make my findings and line of thought visible.

  • ☒N 5 (Amin, The Western Front in 1971 2002, p. 30) doesn't look like an RS to me. It appears to self-published in Slideshare. It says the maps were published in Defence Journal but I can't find them there, and that doesn't look reliable to me either-- it's clearly not an academic journal, and may be more like an organization's blog? It does at least partly verify the cited content, as it says The Pakistani GHQ was, however, already dominated by a defensive mindset (perhaps the other source verifies the connection to him)
  • Question? 16 (Khan, Jahan Dad (1999). Pakistan leadership challenges): Definitely an RS given OUP as publisher. ISBN checks out. The subject is mentioned in this book (with the spelling Hameed). However, I cannot confirm that it verifies that This also helped to reinforce Pakistani forces against Indian attacks in various districts and hold the line. No page number is given, so I used the index to check every mention of Abdul Hameed Khan in the book. As far as I could tell, none of them mentioned this event in 1971, though it's possible I just missed it. I do find something on p 125 about him being shouted down by the army on Dec 16 after a humiliating loss of 90,000 troops as POWs, which is absent from the proposed draft. However it's unclear to me if the loss was tied to his personal decisions or if he was shouted down essentially as a figurehead.
    • Response: The subject being shouted down by the army on Dec 16 after a humiliating loss of 90,000 troops as POWs, is absent as this information is not relevant to this specific section as it occurred after the end of the war. In this manner, this would be added to a section after this one, a sort of 'end of service' section. However it's unclear to me if the loss was tied to his personal decisions or if he was shouted down essentially as a figurehead., From what I have read in a few books, the hooting was directed at all senior officers and members of the Yahya junta, not only Hamid, but it occurred during a speech by Hamid, so can be seen as dubious. Also see 1971 Pakistan Military Officer's Revolt.
  • checkY 20 (Singh, India's Wars Since Independence 1982, p. 13) looks like an RS from an academic publisher and the cited page number does verify the info.
  • checkY 24 (Singh, India's Wars Since Independence 1982, p. 164) is the same RS and verifies the info. Though the source makes it sound more like General Hamid was contradicting Yahya Khan, which seems to be lost in the proposed draft?
  • Question? 27 (Ali, How Pakistan Got Divided 2017, p. 141-142) is an RS, published by OUP. Doesn't verify that General Hamid Khan paid regular visits to East Pakistan since Operation Searchlight, but does verify the rest of the sentence.
    • Response: The idea is to add the details and dates of these specific visits of the General in a section that will come before this one, a section of General Hamid during the Bangladesh War, as these visits occured during this time (during mid 1971). This section is specified to his actions during the subsequent Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (december 1971). But even then, theres no need for that to be written there if it was already going to be said before, so it does make sense to remove it. LesIie (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY 29 ("Niazi surrendered on Yahya's orders". Dawn) looks like an RS newspaper which verifies the info, though I note that the newspaper is really just repeating Niazi's account of events and thus may be more like a WP:PRIMARY interview. I also note that the events described here are directly contradicted by the next source I checked, where it's stated that Niazi urged Yahya to accept the ceasefire (rather than the other way around).
    • Response: You state that the words are directly contradicted by the next source, where it's stated that Niazi urged Yahya to accept the ceasefire (rather than the other way around). It is important to note that the proposed "ceasefire" (halt to fighting, and in this case, a withdrawal of Indian forces) and the "surrender" (laying down of arms to the Indian forces) are two entirely different things, so there is no contradiction occuring here as far as Im aware.
  • Question? 34 ("Puppet Governor Malik Resigned". Daily Sun) looks like an RS newspaper. It verifies the info about Malik's resignation but makes no mention whatsoever of General Hamid and thus does not verify General Hamid did not send Governor Malik any messages after 14 December. The other source cited for this sentence cannot verify that info since it's from 14 Dec 1971 and can't report on the future.
  • checkY 35 (Niazi, The Betrayal of East Pakistan 1998, p. 127-128) does verify that Niazi says this, though it technically doesn't verify that it was a phone call (just "personally contacted" with orders). In context the draft appropriately acknowledges that this is Niazi's contested version of events.
  • ☒N 18 ("'A summary assessment of the 1971 military debacle'". Defence Journal) I added this to my list because I wanted to investigate the draft's praise of General Hamid. I don't consider this an RS -- I question the Defence Journal in general, and this article is in the "opinion" section with no credentials given for the author. Additionally, this source seems cherry-picked. The source does say Gen Hamid’s apprehensions were not totally unfounded, it seemed, after all. A catastrophic situation was averted by not committing the reserves at the outset... but I don't think that's enough for the more positive spin in His caution was later found to be well-judged ... Historians note that if they had been committed at the outset, it would have been impossible to withdraw, especially since the source makes no mention of "historians". The article also has several criticisms of Hamid which are not mentioned in the draft.

Overall, from this source check I conclude that the draft was written by a human working from mostly reliable sources and without LLM hallucinations.

Although the sources are mostly RS, they are not used unimpeachably. There is at least partial verification, but also some failed verification. I also have concerns about NPOV. From reading the sources and the current wiki article, General Hamid appears to have been criticized for his military actions and some matters of fact are contested, whereas the proposed draft emphasizes praise.

  • Response: From reading the sources and the current wiki article, General Hamid appears to have been criticized for his military actions. From what I can see, the only criticism of General Hamid currently present on the page is that he is accused for complicity with the Bangladesh Genocide, which is irrelevant to mention in this draft as it is catered to his 1971 war with india role. Moreover, this statement is only cited using one source, Riza, Maj Gen Shaukat. (1990). The Pakistan Army 1966-71. Rawalpindi: Services Book Club 1990. Which I am unable to access or verify. Hypothetically, details of this claim would be attributed to a Bangladesh War section (not this section) if they are able to be located.
  • My draft is not explicitly praising General Hamid, I mentioned his role in stalling a key offensive and at the end i added that many have viewed him as an "indecisive" leader during the conflict.

It may still be an improvement over the current section of the relevant article, which is much shorter and partially unsourced. Certainly it reads like an effortful and good faith attempt to improve that section. I leave any decisions up to the admins, but I hope this assessment is useful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the time and effort you took to review the draft. Really do appreciate it. I find your assessment is well-written and helpful, both to me and others. You have rightfully raised a few concerns, though I would like to clarify a few things in connection with some points you have made (edit: I have added the responses under each respective point.)
Apart from those, I agree fully with all the points you have written and will change a few things accordingly. Thanks. LesIie (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Lt.gen.zephyr as another potential reviewer. LesIie (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am certainly not active, as of 2025 I have quit wikipedia, but here I would like to keep a verdict as I was mentioned here. Leslie has been doing so far well, citing good sources while editing. I hope he has learnt his lesson about using LLM or AI to generate an article.
My comment would be similar like the other editors who had previously given their statements, avoid using Sani Panhwar, do not use any journals as source as they hardly fall under WP:RS. Apart from these follow the advice of other fellow editors which are stated above, and you are good to go. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your positive input, I’ll be sure to take more care in citing and follow the advise given. LesIie (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User talk:Taeyab and is being posted here due to a redirect.)