Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Administrative abuse on bnwiki

This case is closed. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
Kaim Amin (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	meta notification
Wikitanvir (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	meta notification
Other Admins of bnwiki

U4C member alert: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515 Kaim Amin (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaim Amin

Description of the problem - (Kaim Amin)

I have been blocked indefinitely on Bengali Wikipedia (bnwiki) by an admin, User:আফতাবুজ্জামান (Aftabuzzaman), for very irrational reasons, without any prior warning or discussion. The rationales provided are all based on personal beliefs rather than proper policies. Later, when I stated that this block was unfair, User:Wikitanvir declined my unblock request, stating that I should not protest my block but accept it and take it as a warning. The blocking note provided on my talk page by Aftabuzzaman is the following:

আপনি বাংলা উইকিতে নিষিদ্ধ ব্যবহারকারীদের হয়ে সুকৌশলে তাদের প্রকল্পের প্রচারণা চালাচ্ছেন (আপনি মাঝেমধ্যে বাংলা উইকিতে "আজকের নির্বাচিত ছবি" টেমপ্লেটে কাজ করেন, তারপর নিষিদ্ধ ব্যবহারকারীদের ঐ প্রকল্পের ছবি আজকের নির্বাচিত ছবি" টেমপ্লেটের মাধ্যমে প্রধান পাতায় যোগ করেন। আপনি এই কাজ করেন যেন কেউ বলতে না পারে যে আপনাকে তো "আজকের নির্বাচিত ছবি" নিয়ে কোনদিন কাজ করতে দেখিনি। উক্ত প্রকল্পটি বাংলা উইকিতে বিতর্কিত + স্বার্থের সংঘাত। এটি সুকৌশল ছাড়া আর কিছু নয়। এতদিন এটি আমার সন্দেহে ছিল, আজ সন্দেহটি আরও স্পষ্ট হয় যখনি আপনি কমন্সে ঐ প্রকল্পের উপপ্রকল্পের পক্ষে আমার তৈরি ফাইলের কৃতিত্ব চুরির চেষ্টা করেন https://w.wiki/EMqs )।
আরো যোগ করতে হয় যে কিছু মাস আগে আপনি গত বছরের বাংলা উইকি সম্প্রদায়ের ঐক্যমত্য স্পষ্ট উপেক্ষা করে বাংলা উইকিতে ঐ নিষিদ্ধ ব্যবহারকারীদের প্রকল্পের ব্যানার টাঙান।
English Translation: You are cleverly promoting the project of banned users on Bangla Wiki (you sometimes work on the "Today's Featured Picture" template on Bangla Wiki, then add the pictures of the banned users' projects to the main page through the "Today's Featured Picture" template. You do this so that no one can say that they have never seen you working on "Today's Featured Picture". The said project is controversial on Bangla Wiki + conflict of interest. This is nothing but cleverness. I have suspected this until now, today the suspicion is even clearer when you try to steal the credit for the file I created, on behalf of the subproject of that project on Commons https://w.wiki/EMqs ).
It should also be added that a few months ago, you clearly ignored the consensus of the Bangla Wiki community last year and put up the banner of the banned users' project on Bangla Wiki. [Google Translate]

Adding pictures on POTD for advertisement on behalf of blocked/banned editors and Conflict of interest

Aftabuzzaman accused me of adding certain images to POTD templates on bnwiki to promote Project Korikath (two of its founders are currently blocked on bnwiki).

Except, I believe I’ve only ever added 9 images on POTD templates (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), and only two of them (5, 7) were uploaded under Project Korikath (member of Cat:Project Korikath-All images). Neither these images, nor the so-called advertising materials alleged by Aftabuzzaman, contain anything advertising, nor were they uploaded by any blocked/banned editors. They are all Featured Pictures on Commons, and I added them per Bengali Wikipedia’s POTD tutorial. In addition, I would like to mention that I also add images to the POTD section of Wikimedia Commons; for example, this and this was from Wiki Loves Bangla, a campaign that was not organised by Project Korikath but by Aftabuzzaman and others.

Aftabuzzaman also referenced WP:COI, the only policy he linked. But I’m not an employee or member of Korikath, and the images I added aren’t owned by Korikath nor represent Korikath in any direct way. All the images are COM:FP and promoted with consensus. Aftabuzzaman never clarified how FP images can be prohibited from being added as POTD only because they were uploaded with Korikath’s upload tool, and how this can justify an indef block without any warning. Also, the authors did not upload the images with the intention of promoting Korikath, and prohibiting their images may prove to be disparaging against the authors.

Adding Project Shoili’s tag on Commons

I believe this is the trigger event for my indefinite block. On Commons, I recreated this file originally uploaded by Aftabuzzaman and later added this template. Aftabuzzaman removed the template, stating that he didn't create this file under Project Shoili (sister project of Korikath). According to Aftabuzzaman, I tried to steal his credit for the file by adding this template. However, he is not the author of the file, nor does the template make any authorship claim. Mentioning him, I explained it on the file talk page. Sadly, Aftabuzzaman showed no interest in the discussion. His only initiative was jumping to bnwiki and blocking me there. Blocking a user on bnwiki due to actions on another project is ridiculous by itself. However, Aftabuzzaman did it without showing any intention of a viable solution.

Ignoring community consensus by requesting Central Notice Banner

Previously bnwiki community had a consensus not to show the central notice banner for WLFBD24, mainly because it was organised by blocked users, but no decision was made for any future events. This year, as a member of the organising team of WLFBD25, I requested the banner for this event on metawiki. After that, multiple major discussions (1, 2) were held on bnwiki related to the banner spanning for months. But I was never accused of or warned for ignoring consensus. Only now, after months, Aftabuzzaman decided to block me without any warning or discussion.

Furthermore, on the discussion on CNBanner for WLFBD25, editors raised concern over Aftabuzzaman’s prompt decision to use Interface Admin rights to block CNBanner locally using CSS without discussing with the community, despite having a COI with Project Korikath. This concern about Aftabuzzaman was also mentioned by users in the discussion.

Deliberately ignoring my unblock request

I requested to be unblocked with reasons similar to those above. For more than a month, no other admin had been sincere in reviewing my block. Only after I pinged all the admins, Wikitanvir placed an under review template, but left it pending for more than half a month.

As I am an active wikimedian, this block was disrupting my contribution to wikimedia projects. Later, I requested to review my block on the telegram channel of bnwiki multiple times, last time stating: “মাস খানেক হতে চললো। একটু সময় করে আমার বাধা অপসারণের অনুরোধটি দ্রুত পর্যালোচনা করলে ভালো হয়” English Translation: “It's been a month. It would be nice if you could take some time and quickly review my unblock request.”

But channel admins immediately deleted my messages and restricted my ability to send any further. Finding no other means, I sent an email to the bnwiki mailing list, requesting clarification on why the messages were removed and why my unblock request is being ignored. Rather than addressing the problem, the mailing list owners rejected my email, stating that it was not a place to request to be unblocked, which was not the actual intention of the mail.

It is clear that the admins of bnwiki were deliberately ignoring my unblock request and suppressing me wherever I asked for accountability.

Inadequate review of my unblock request

Later, after another admin pinging him, User:Wikitanvir stated that rather than defending myself and my actions, I should follow the summary of the policy of appealing a block (same as the one on enwiki). Although he did acknowledge, “Images may or may not be a means of promotion. Different people can see it in different ways,” Wikitanvir ignored all my reasons provided on my unblock request. He never clarified why I should not add images on POTD templates or how adding two images can be a means of promotion, while everything about Korikath is on Commons, nothing on bnwiki.

Wikitanvir also stated that he wants to see this block as a warning. He asked me to follow the recently adopted policy of preventing users from promoting organisations founded by blocked users. As I believe I never promoted anyone, I rejected his warning, and I asked him to annul my block, as Aftabuzzaman never showed any policy supporting this block, but only based it on his personal belief.

Although the policy of appealing a block clearly mentions appealing against unfair blocking, Wikitanvir again ignored my reasons and rejected my unblock request, stating “the user presented the request for unblock as a request for annuling the block and rejected warning, which is contrary to the instructions regarding appealing a block.”

True Intention for the Block

Aftabuzzaman, along with some other users, had numerous conflicts for years (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) with users involved with Project Korikath. Therefore, I believe my block is due to his personal grudge against Project Korikath and his intention to eradicate everyone involved in Korikath from bnwiki, a concern that was raised by several other users in the past. Here, Aftabuzzaman engaged in an editwar where he kept removing a quality image under Korikath, only stating, “it is not beautiful enough”. Upon asking about the review process, not basing any policy or guideline, he bragged about the fact that it was reviewed by himself.

Also noteworthy is that I have had multiple minor conflicts with Aftabuzzaman (1, 2, 3, 4), mostly due to my corrections of Aftabuzzaman’s edits. Due to this, Aftabuzzaman may have a personal grudge against me.

Also, recently, there was a proposal to implement a policy regarding events organised by blocked users. I, along with some of the other bnwiki users, heavily opposed the proposal, raising concerns of possible misapplication. I believe my block, without a warning for ridiculous and unjustified reasons, is a part of that possible misapplication.

Allegations against User:আফতাবুজ্জামান

User:আফতাবুজ্জামান has a personal grudge against the blocked users from Project Korikath, which is evident from his past onwiki conversations, and this clear COI is a concern that other users have raised from the past that he has been dragging his personal grudge into onwiki spaces. This violates Wikipedia’s core Friendly Environment Policy, and despite having a clear COI, User:আফতাবুজ্জামান misused his admin tools to block me indefinitely without any prior warning. Therefore, User:আফতাবুজ্জামান breached 3.2 of UCoC by abusing his administrative powers for his own gain.

User:আফতাবুজ্জামান didn’t make any effort to warn or find a solution to the topic through discussion. Instead, he decided to come up with a solution all by himself by indefinitely blocking me. Aftabuzzaman failed to provide a clear blocking reason to support Wikipedia's policies. Thus, User:আফতাবুজ্জামান ignored and violated WP:BLOCKNO, WP:BEFOREBLOCK and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK.

Allegations against User:Wikitanvir

I believe User:Wikitanvir is only protecting User:আফতাবুজ্জামান overlooking his misconduct. He ignored all my reasons and rejected my request, stating that I failed to assure that I would not promote any organisation any further (which I never did). Wikitanvir deliberately overlooked the policy of appealing a block by stating that “Unblock request is not a place to protest.”

Allegations against other Admins of bnwiki

Despite the clear absurdity of my block, the admins of bnwiki collectively showed deliberate negligence in their responsibility, probably only to protect Aftabuzzaman. The admins of the telegram channel, who are mainly bnwiki admins, misused their admin tools to suppress me to avoid accountability. Therefore, they collectively breached 3.2 of UCoC by abusing their administrative powers.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Kaim Amin)

I have tried to discuss a solution for the Shoili tag on the file talk page. But Aftabuzzaman never responded.

I requested an unblock, but it had been left unreviewed for more than a month. Later, Wikitanvir rejected my unblock request improperly as stated above.

My indef block has prevented me from requesting local remedies, such as on the Administrator’s Noticeboard. I requested clarifications on the telegram channel and mailing list, but was suppressed as stated above.

I am afraid, any local discussion may show bias towards User:আফতাবুজ্জামান and make it difficult to achieve a fair solution.

আফতাবুজ্জামান

Previous attempts at a solution - আফতাবুজ্জামান

Wikitanvir

Previous attempts at a solution - Wikitanvir

Other Admins of bnwiki

Previous attempts at a solution - Other Admins of bnwiki

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

@BRPever, I should clarify that the main concern of this request is not the block but the continuous harassment and hostile behaviour from User:আফতাবুজ্জামান and the other admins supporting him. I believe you'd also find it reasonable that adding two images for 'promotion' can cause a warning at most, surely not an indefinite block. Note also that the policy regarding promotion was adapted after I added those images, not before. Not taking any measures will only result in further harassment and even blocking. Kaim Amin (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read your unblock request, where you mentioned that you would continue adding images to POTD, whether they are of Karikath or not, even if you are unblocked. I used Google Translate, so I could be mistaken. Still, you should appeal locally with proper reason and try to resolve the issue there. I do not believe this is a situation that requires our intervention. BRP^ever 14:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting my statement. I add images to POTDs only because they're featured pictures of Bangladesh. What I meant was I have no regard for whether they're from Korikath or anything else. I'll refrain from adding them if the policy or the community specifically prohibits so.

I believe I deserved at least a discussion before the block. But Aftabuzzaman knew he won't have to answer for it, so he blocked me regardless, and I don't think any other admin is willing to revert it.

I am taking back the first point of my suggested solutions. But my block does prove harassment and misuse of power from Aftabuzzaman and other admins. I understand that I should reason with admins, but that should've been done before imposing someone with an indef block. Kaim Amin (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghilt,Civvì, I want to remind you that I no longer intend to get unblocked from here, so this shouldn't be the reason to decline this request. Kaim Amin (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Points 2, 3 and 4 of your suggested solutions only make sense to me after a local appeal. Ghilt (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt, I did appeal locally, explaining why my block was unfair and how Aftabuzzaman disregarded WP:BEFOREBLOCK. But User:Wikitanvir stated that I shouldn't ask to annul my block per the instructions, which is not true (same as the one on enwiki). I was even blocked from the telegram channel without any explanation. As admins are reluctant to go against Aftabuzzaman, I don't think any more appeals will change anything. Kaim Amin (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikitanvir, we need your input, please. Ghilt (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ghilt, I’m a bit unclear on what the user means by “annul my block.” Annulment of a block is not a very common term on Wikimedia that I have seen. I also have not seen that on the policy pages, Kaim Amin linked. If they want to get unblocked, then they need to a) show a proper understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines, b) acknowledge why they were blocked in the first place (i.e., what led to the block), and c) assure us that they will be more careful in the future when making similar edits. These are expected whenever a blocked user appeals to get unblocked. As I mentioned in the local discussion, I’d like to assume good faith regarding their intentions and edits. However, they also need to put in some effort to reach a resolution, while respecting the existing local policies and guidelines.

Whether further appeals will help them depends on their attitude. So far, they’ve made only one appeal, which came across as dismissive and uncooperative. I honestly don’t think this case should have escalated here, as there are still plenty of chances that could have been taken to resolve it locally. People need to make a genuine effort first before becoming impatient. — T. 17:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaim Amin Wikitanvir's statement sounds very reasonable and contains hints for you about what to do. Ghilt (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt, The section I linked to states, "you can request a review of the block if you believe it is unfair or that you have put right whatever was the problem." My block also falls under the type 1 of unblock requests as described here.

a) show a proper understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines, b) acknowledge why they were blocked in the first place (i.e., what led to the block), and c) assure us that they will be more careful in the future when making similar edits.

What Wikitanvir described here is the general procedure of unblocking (type 2), as admins are expected to impose blocks that comply with the policies. Unfortunately, in this case, Aftabuzzaman did not warn or discuss before the block (WP:BEFOREBLOCK). He did not show any relevant policies supporting the block (WP:EXPLAINBLOCK). He imposed the block despite having COI with me and Korikath (WP:BLOCKNO).

Unless Wikitanvir doesn't know about basic blocking policies, it is clear he deliberately ignored Aftabuzzaman's misconduct. Rules weren't followed while imposing the blocks on the first place. So he was supposed to lift the block no matter what.

So far, they’ve made only one appeal, which came across as dismissive and uncooperative

Other admins already showed negligence in reviewing my block even after tried seek attention. I don't believe any more appeals will change anything when my unblocking reason stays the same and other admins are reluctant to against Aftabuzzaman.

People need to make a genuine effort first before becoming impatient.

First, I was blocked due to ridiculous reasons. Second, My appeal was left pending for 34 days. Third, I was suppressed on the telegram channel for no reason. Fourth, Wikitanvir ignored my reasons and refused to see the block as unfair. I guess that was enough patience from me. Kaim Amin (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaim Amin, WP:BEFOREBLOCK is satisfied, as it explicitly states that it is not a prerequisite for performing a block. Admins have different styles as they hold different personalities. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t adhere to the policy. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK is also satisfied, since you were provided the reasons by blocking admin. I have also provided a link to the relevant policy that the blocking admin believes you failed to adhere to. However, I also said on your unblock request that I want to assume good faith on your intentions and explanations regarding your edits. Your reference to WP:BLOCKNO does not fully apply here (we’re kind of on a fine line here) because there is no explicit restriction preventing Aftabuzzaman from intervening in matters related to Korikath. However, Aftabuzzaman has indeed been highly involved in such matters. They have also interacted with you on a similar topic on another project before this block. So a possible COI could be questioned. This is also why I repeatedly emphasized that I want to assume good faith regarding your reasoning and lift your block. Unfortunately, you failed to cooperate and comply with the existing guidelines on appealing a block. Therefore, in good conscience, I was unable to lift your block.

Lastly, I don’t mean to say you were impatient simply because you waited ‘34 days.’ You did wait patiently during that time. I referred to impatience because you chose not to cooperate further on the local wiki to seek an unblock and instead escalated the issue directly to the U4C. This approach shows a lack of respect toward Bangla Wikipedia, which is a capable platform for resolving such issues. The tone in your request and subsequent discussion also makes your appeal ineffective.

U4C, I don’t believe this matter will be resolved through repetitive arguments on the same points, either here or on the local wiki. If the goal is truly to resolve, Ghilt has already clearly indicated to Kaim Amin what their next steps should be. If the goal is merely to make a statement, then I doubt any of us have an interest in continuing this discussion. — T. 17:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikitanvir

WP:BEFOREBLOCK is satisfied, as it explicitly states that it is not a prerequisite for performing a block.

Please don't game the system. Right after that, it explains, "users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity, do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." I don't think I fall on this category.

WP:EXPLAINBLOCK is also satisfied, since you were provided the reasons by blocking admin. I have also provided a link to the relevant policy ...

What Aftabuzzaman stated is only speculation. The policy you provided was adopted after I added those two images, so this is not applicable here. Also the policy doesn't mention adding images to POTDs, and 2 out of 10 images don't count as promotion.

Unfortunately, you failed to cooperate and comply with the existing guidelines on appealing a block.

I already explained, this block itself doesn't follow any rules. If the block is unfair, I don't need to accept it.

I referred to impatience because you chose not to cooperate further on the local wiki to seek an unblock ... ...

There is no prerequisite that the least number of appeals must be made. The concern of this case request is not the block the continuous harassment from Aftabuzzaman and the other admins supporting him.

I also don't intend to keep on arguing. But I do feel obliged to point out the policies you're ignoring. Kaim Amin (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

I do not believe this situation has reached the point where U4C intervention is necessary. Talk page access has not been revoked, and the admins seem to be seeking understanding before a possible unblock. I do not believe local measures have been exhausted. If a project has policies prohibiting the promotion of events by blocked or banned users, and multiple administrators have raised concerns about certain activities, I think it’s reasonable to at least consider refraining from those activities. There are plenty of other areas to contribute to; there’s no need to insist on continuing the same activity.--BRP^ever 13:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please appeal this locally. --Ghilt (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The block should be appealed locally. --Civvì (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing administrative abuse. And the block should be appealed locally. dbeef (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my colleagues above. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The case has been declined by the majority of the U4C members. As such, this case is closed as declined.--BRP^ever 16:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]