User talk:Wiki.arfazhxss

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Israel–Spain relations, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dianna! Arfaz here: I've re-edited the section Diplomatic Dispute Section in the Israel–Spain relations Page, my current references includes contents from The Guardian, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, Reuters, and BBC News. I made sure to follow the sources listed in Wikipedia: Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I noticed you retracted my last contribution for one of the sources, The Guardian. Could you please let me know if there's a list of licensed news networks that can be referenced in Wikipedia? Thank you! Wiki.arfazhxss (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean websites that are not protected by copyright, there's no such list, because pretty much everything you find online is protected by copyright. Content you add to Wikipedia has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. — Diannaa (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot advice[edit]

Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia. I notice that you have run IABOT many times. It has its uses, but the way you're using it may not be as beneficial to the encyclopedia as you think. Consider this run on History of Bangladesh:

Google Books: An archive link to a blank page is useless, and bloats the article.[1]
Indian Express: Columnists writing about history in a modern-day newspaper are a low quality source. Wikipedia much prefers historians writing in books published by reputable academic presses. It would be more helpful to find a scholarly source than to link to an archive of an unwanted source.[2]
Refugee Board of Canada: This is another low quality source for history. It would be better to replace it than to maintain it.[3]
The Hindu: This is an opinion piece, so not reliable for facts per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Wikipedia should not cite it.[4]
JSTOR: The original citation should not have included this URL for two reasons: first, the url parameter should only point to the full text of the source (which this doesn't) and second, the jstor parameter serves as the link to this URL, so using the url parameter is duplication.[5]

So in this example, 60% of the changes were harmful. They created undesirable bloat. The remaining 40% were only marginally useful, as the links weren't dead and ideally will be replaced with better sources.

Tools and bots can seem very satisfying, as they give the impression that they accomplish a lot of work at the press of a button. They aren't as intelligent as a human editor though. Multiple citation-focused bots run on their own. My advice is to not activate IABOT, or do not activate it frequently, until you have enough experience to appreciate the pros and cons of using it. Definitely don't run it because an anonymous editor or one who is not in good standing tells you to. That should be a big red flag that it is a bad idea.

If you are looking for ways to help out, see Wikipedia:Community portal. If you're interested specifically in improving Bangladesh-related articles, see this list of cleanup tasks. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! --Worldbruce (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice! Arfaz (chat) | 22:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that Wikipedia citations get automatically archived by the Internet Archive, without needing to run IABot. The Internet Archive also has deals with news organisations to automatically archive all their articles. This is unnecessary, and unfortunately harmful since Wikipedia has low technical size limits for articles; you can already see that the navboxes at the bottom of the page fail to render properly, and if the page grows any further, citations will break too. It's very time-consuming to manually remove these archive links to bring the page size back down, and manual removal is the only option if anyone has edited the page after IABot. If it weren't for the technical size limits it would be mostly harmless, but as things stand, I recommend avoiding adding archives for non-dead links. Cheers - DFlhb (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wiki.arfazhxss reported by User:LucrativeOffer (Result: ). Thank you. LucrativeOffer (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Bangladesh genocide. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Hi! I have already attempted all of the above. None of them worked. Arfaz (chat) | 14:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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 special powers 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 practice;
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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki.arfazhxss. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I was just blocked for no reason. No investigation into this was taken place, nothing. Did you check the IP? The guy who posted that wasn't me, but was someone else? We have nothing in common, I didn't expect this from the investigation. Arfaz (chat) | 00:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock - December 12[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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I am very new to Wikipedia and I have been editing, contributing to articles for less than 2 months. I most recently found a couple of articles from my home country, where I don't live anymore, to have been vandalized and with informations that doesn't hold true. I unfortunately was caught in an edit war with Nomian, an account I suspect to be a sock. My reason was (and this can be seen throughout the article's history): Nomian have been reverting any changes made by any other users except for a few. I was reverting the articles back to when the article wasn't changed, and vandalized (3 month-ish revert).

Since the topic itself was contentious, I, since this deals with the history of my country, was discussing this issue, along with a couple of other editors in the talk page, and reached a consensus that the edits of this article doesn't reflect what many of the sources includes say. Some of the sources included were not WP:RS, and this was argued through as well. A.Musketeer then went on to claim that one of the IP 64.229.49.146 was me, and I was taken aback but was confident that this will fell through- given this wasn't in-fact me at all. I thought an investigation into the usage, and IP range, along with many other tools used by Wikipedia would make this happen. I waited for 2 days since my block due to reverting changes was lifted until today at 4, I was blocked again for 3 days.

The person behind IP that have been blocked for a week (which is thought to be me) was a Bengali Hindu, and this can be easily dissected from their words and edits. I am a Bengali Muslim by birth, an agnostic by nature. We have no commonality except we both talked in the page about the misuse of Wikipedia, but nothing else. I now suspect that the blocked IP came from an online forum which was posted a couple of days before talking about this issue in the Wikipedia articles. Besides this, we have nothing in common. Our edits, words used, timeline of edits could have easily given anyone a good enough idea that these are two different individuals.

Nomian and A.Musketeer, I suspect are a part of a group of editors from right-wing India, who have a history of collaboratively reporting and blocking users- I really don't know they pull this off, but this seems to be something that they have done throughout their history of using wikipedia since 2014. For reverting their changes, two accounts have been blocked indefinitely in the last 2 months, one account was reported very shortly after I came and started editing in their accounts. My account was reported (including being posted as a sock suspect) 3 times, in the last 4 days. 3 times. I have found strange similarities in the articles the accounts have worked in, and the edits and the words that the accounts use. How am I going to ask for an investigation into this, if I am being blocked continuously?

I was blocked wrongfully, without any reason. Please unblock me, so I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia from a neutral point of view. I am asking admins to check the IP address, use as many tools possible to take a look at my block situation.

Arfaz (chat) | 01:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed abuse of multiple accounts; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki.arfazhxss. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:14, 14 December 2023 (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.

Have you used reddit to recruit other editors to help you push your point of view? Are you aware that WP:CANVASSing is not acceptable? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije I think I have mentioned this before- that wasn't me. Arfaz (chat) | 20:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended SP Investigation Outcome[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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't aware that filing a SPI case with a different account falls under sockpuppetry, If I did I wouldn't have mentioned my name, my accounts and my intentions in those filings. Now that I am thinking about this, I even mentioned this in my last unblock request as well- my name, my other account and my intentions for using Wikipedia. I didn't use anonymous accounts to make edits, vandalism or anything of that sort- but I was accused in doing so. I was blocked indefinitely for filing an SPI asking admins for a simple request to see if the accounts I suspected are socks. (?). I wasn't aware I was breaching any rules by articulating my points in my filing of the SPIs and unblock requests. But since now that I am aware that it is a breach of Wikipedia rules, and- that I had a time to reflect on my actions- I promise I won't do it again.

I have previously been blocked for being a sock of an anonymous IP <64.229.49.146> for 3 days (I was never 64.229.49.146 nor SherylOfficial- I was blocked for being SPs of these accounts without an investigation), and I think the CheckUser investigation found nothing substantial to say that I had anything to do with these accounts... or their activities. I can also confirm that I was never a part of any vandalism and abuse of this platform. My reason for using another account was my lack of knowledge into how the SPI investigation works, and I was being targeted as an SP of multiple accounts which I wasn't.

I am very new to Wikipedia, and am still getting used to things. Before this month, I wasn't even aware what sock-puppetry means. I can also confirm, I never vandalized any articles, abused multiple accounts in the wrong intentions (and that includes not knowing that filing an SP with a different account is a sockpuppetry). I am now aware that it's not an excuse to abuse accounts to file retaliatory SPs. I was unaware that I was abusing accounts rule by filing an SP, I won't do it again.

Question to the admins: How long should I wait before I can truly make my case and point and let this go? Can I or should I still file an SP for the accounts I suspect are socks? (I am not aware of the rules, I will as time goes by- but any help would be appreciated).

Thank you. Happy holidays, Merry Christmas, and Happy Hanukkah- if you're celebrating.

Arfaz (chat) | 10:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In addition to the deceptive behaviour described below, you have been editing logged out to evade your block. Appeal declined. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:39, 12 January 2024 (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.

Arfaz (chat) | 10:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship to the reddit user u/nerdiste? 5 days ago (at 20:15, 10 December 2023 UTC to be exact) u/nerdiste posted a comment saying that they had just been blocked for 2 days for "reverting vandalism" on the Wikipedia page Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. On Wikipedia, you were involved in an edit war on that page from December 9-10, and you were given a 48-hour block for it, just about 6 hours before u/nerdiste's post. Above, when Vanjagenije asked, you said that a series of reddit posts by u/nerdiste recruiting Bangladeshi editors to the Wikipedia dispute were not you. Care to explain? Be honest this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector I am being honest, that wasn't me. I am not the only user who reverted edits on the page (you should remember another anonymous IP was also reverting edits) And I don't think it was posted before I was blocked for 48 hours, I came from the reddit post itself. And I do have a reddit account in my name too. Arfaz (chat) | 15:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to your first account's user page, you're a software engineering student at the University of Victoria, and according to your first unblock request here you no longer live in your home country. u/nerdiste also is (or was) a computer science major at UVic, and is a recent immigrant to Canada, according to their post history. You started editing Bangladesh genocide and articles related to it on 8 December at roughly 14:00 UTC, complaining about consensus based only on input from non-Bangladeshi editors, and on the talk page you complained about "vandalism" from "far rights in India". u/nerdiste first posted about this at 7:41 UTC the next day, complaining of the article being "vandalized by Indian right-wing/Hindutva", and inviting Bangladeshi editors to comment on specific threads on the article's talk page, several of which you had already commented in. Then as I described above, you were blocked for edit-warring, and u/nerdiste complained about being blocked on Wikipedia because of edit-warring on the same page as you were, and at nearly the same time.

What you're expecting me to believe, based on your posts here, is that you're two different people who both attend the same program at the same university, which you both immigrated to attend; that u/nerdiste is a different Wikipedia editor who was also blocked for specifically the same length and at the same time as you for edit warring on specifically the same article; and that you first became interested in correcting bias in Bangladesh genocide because of u/nerdiste's Reddit post despite it being posted a day after you first edited that article. And that u/nerdiste posting repeatedly today about vandalism on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War is totally unrelated to you having been blocked because of edit warring on that article. It's just a stunning series of coincidences, right?

I'll tell you right now that any unblock is going to include a broad ban from this topic as a condition; I am willing to discuss it, but I am not going to waste my time on someone who is being so obviously deceptive. Would you like to try again? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are in the same department or the same year, or even the same city, u/nerdiste does use wikipedia. If you had any substantial evidence that actually points me to u/nerdiste. then do let me know, I am sure I will be able to explain. I am okay with the broad ban honestly, because I am no longer interested in contributing to this topic. I am sure someone else will come and try to fix this, only to have 3 different accounts reverting, vandalizing at the same time.

If you think my block shouldn't be lifted, then do change my block reason to be a rule that I actually broke rather than sock-puppetry and abuse of multiple accounts- because I didn't do them. I am still asking for unblock, because the second time I was blocked was not legitimate. I still don't think I am being blocked because of sock-puppetry and abuse of multiple accounts. Arfaz (chat) | 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Ivanvector, I'm wondering if you've made a decision regarding the unblock. In my previous talks, I detailed my situation, apologized for engaging in an edit war and filing an SPI case while being blocked. I've provided thorough explanations for my actions in the preceding discussions. I believe in the idea of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia, where everyone can make a collaborative effort in building a comprehensive encyclopedia, and will continue to make contribution based on my interests- if unblocked. Let me know if you need any more clarification.

Thank you! Arfaz (chat) | 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion[edit]

@Ivanvector: Unblock? Decline? WP:SO. Looks like WP:TOPICBAN on India, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh is in order. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: thanks for your ping, I had decided not to respond further after they doubled down about their Reddit canvassing (see the discussion above), but I forgot to close the appeal. They are also socking logged out as recently as yesterday, so no, declined by checkuser. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did read your reasoning behind his ban, that,

"he used reddit to recruit editors, committing canvassing. And showed, his complain in that talk and that reddit post seems to be next day to day. And both have same university, same program."

However, I am sure, you are Canadian, I am Bangladeshi Hindu living in Canada, for 7 years. So I am sure, Canadians here seems to be biased towards us? Eh?

Excuse me, I am mentioning this because, you concluded, that, that account, and he have same university, and same program, and came from same country.

I honestly feel, you are coming to this decision based on, "Not many Bangladeshis come here." EH? else, it does not make sense, how you can come to such conclusion based on basic public infos.

Let me tell you, theres lots of Bangladeshis coming here, as Canada is Bangladeshi people's top 3 immigration destination. So, there would be chance of getting those basic infos matched up too.

Also, let me give another example from my experience, I came here, as CS student, then, meet other 3 Bangladeshis, 1 one us was Hindu, and others were Non muslim, but studying in same university, in same program. does that mean, all 3 us are just me?

In this logic, your explanation, about his, and that reddit account and another anon ip address being same person, does not make sense.

Thank you for your understanding. 50.101.179.126 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah almost everyone I know from my community is studying CS, I am not however. Blocking admin seems to think we are the same based on this. Anyways thanks for your input, 50.101.179.126 :)) Arfaz (chat) | 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivanvector, doubled down? You can't just accuse me of something and then expect me to admit to that. What do you mean by "socking logged out as recently as yesterday"? I took a break from all this after I appealed- because I saw somewhere apparently you have to wait. I am not sure what you're accusing me of, can you explain? Arfaz (chat) | 02:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: HindutvaITCells (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, so! You will need therefore to request unblocking via your original account. Welp, socking destroys the community's trust, but this? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a check user block, it is beyond my purview, so unwatching. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepfriedokra, this is my original account. You might be referring to my other account with my actual name and identity (which I- don't know why that account was blocked, I didn't use that account at all for anything I have been accused of).

In brief: in my first unblock request, I have mentioned that I only had one 'other' account which also had my name on it, my actual name and that's all the accounts I have- and that other account was blocked too. The reason for my block has only been for filing an SPI under another account I had to make because I thought this was the only way for filing an SP. Arfaz (chat) | 02:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's this? Arfaz (chat) | 02:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your other account is blocked because you are blocked It makes no sense to block only one account. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, this is a checkuser block, and so beyond my remit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting again for an unblock request. I did not edit logged out, and I did not open any accounts after filing my last unblock request. I only have (and had) two accounts that I use, and if I am unblocked, I will continue to use those two accounts. I have apologized in both of my unblock requests regarding the SPI filings, and have admitted that it broke the Wikipedia rules as I have also mentioned that it was not known to me. The second time I was blocked was wrong, and I was blocked for being a suspected sock-puppet for an unknown IP- I wasn't that IP, or accounts I have been suspected of being a sock of, and will be.

As Deepfriedokra mentioned, I am honestly okay with the whole ban on south asian topic (even though I was only editing on my own country's history), I want to leave this all behind. @Wiki.arfazhxss is my original account, and I have my name and personal information engraved on the other account. I would ask the blocking admins to remove my identity from my other account.

Decline reason:

I did not edit logged out, and I did not open any accounts after filing my last unblock request.

Technical evidence makes it quite clear that this is not accurate. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2024 (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.

Arfaz (chat) | 03:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say Wiki.arfazhxss is my original account? The other account was registered (and edited) more than 3 years before Wiki.arfazhxss. How can it be that the original was created 3 years after non-original? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOO. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije if you looked through my contributions in my supposed original account, there was no activity in that account for more than a year. The simple reason is, I didn't have the credentials to log in through my account, and I opened a new one last year. The edits in my 'original' account were few minor edits made to maybe one to two pages. Arfaz (chat) | 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, you edited with that account just last month. What happened? You suddenly found lost credentials? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah no, you're right- the last edit was on December 6th. I thought I didn't use it throughout 2023. It was actually in one of my old machines- so I just logged on and edited, then realized later that I had a second account. Arfaz (chat) | 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My block was solely based on a retaliatory SPI filing being blocked because I was a suspected sock of an IP I wasn't. If there's technical evidence that I did in fact edit logged off, please show me. I am sure I will be able to explain.

Decline reason:

Check user says otherwise. I'm sorry, I am are unable to unblock you at this time. I recommend waiting at least six months before you again request unblocking. (You should not evade your block by editing the English language Wikipedia from a different account or while not logged in during this time. It would reset the six month timer.) It would work in your favor for you to constructively edit a different Wikipedia or Wikimedia project during this time, for at least six months and at least 500 edits. You will then need to concisely and clearly tell how your editing merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. A list of Wikimedia projects can be found at META:List_of_Wikipedias . Before again requesting unblocking, please read the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Please read and heed any other advice you have received in unblock declines or discussions. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 8:41 am, Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2024 (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.

if my unblock request isn't accepted, I would be happy to discuss the steps required to remove my personal information, and if possible, my two accounts from Wikipedia. Arfaz (chat) | 21:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{checkuser needed}} to close request -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, they're confirmed to Arfaz Hossain, Auvankar and AurSre and have repeatedly evaded their block using IPs as recently as this month. Obviously, the privacy policy prevents me from publicly disclosing the IP addresses involved, but the data is unambiguous and easily verifiable by any other editor with the CU permission. Spicy (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bang goes this application. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]