User talk:Wiki.arfazhxss

Welcome!
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:
 * Copying text from other sources
 * Policy on copyright
 * Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
 * Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.


 * Introduction
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

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)


 * 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 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)
 * 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)

Bot advice
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: 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.
 * 1) Google Books: An archive link to a blank page is useless, and bloats the article.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) Refugee Board of Canada: This is another low quality source for history. It would be better to replace it than to maintain it.
 * 4) The Hindu: This is an opinion piece, so not reliable for facts per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Wikipedia should not cite it.
 * 5) 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.

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 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)


 * Thank you for the advice! Arfaz (chat) &#124; 22:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

December 2023
 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bbb23 Hi! I have already attempted all of the above. None of them worked. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 14:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at 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:.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 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) &#124; 00:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for Unblock - December 12

 * 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)
 * @Vanjagenije I think I have mentioned this before- that wasn't me. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 20:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Unintended SP Investigation Outcome
Arfaz (chat) &#124; 10:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * @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) &#124; 15:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) &#124; 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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) &#124; 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Unblock discussion
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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) &#124; 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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) &#124; 02:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also: . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * As this is a check user block, it is beyond my purview, so unwatching. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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) &#124; 02:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, what's this? Arfaz (chat) &#124; 02:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thanks. However, this is a checkuser block, and so beyond my remit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request
Arfaz (chat) &#124; 03:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * OOOOO. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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) &#124; 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But, you edited with that account just last month. What happened? You suddenly found lost credentials?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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) &#124; 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request

 * 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) &#124; 21:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * checkuser needed to close request -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , they're confirmed to, and  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)
 * Thanks. Bang goes this application. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)