ShymalWhatsappUniversity

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  – robertsky (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

We have come to know that Wikipedia has a listing about WHATSAPP UNIVERSITY. NB: WHATSAPP UNIVERSITY and WHATSAPP COLLEGE are brandnames of Brahma University since at least 2016.The aforesaid listing about our University in your directory is causing confusion in mind of students that our college is spreading disinformation and specifically political disinformation on behalf of a specific political party.The Wiki listing contains links to highly libelous articles tarnishing our brand name. Accordingly, I posted a comment requesting that the said wiki directory listing be removed without laches so that there is no confusion, specifically in India. However, I was targeted by an anonymous IP editor who repeatedly removed my message. We thought that Wikipedia is where anybody can edit, especially to get harmful content affecting them removed or corrected. You are correct that I am not here to contribute or to edit your encyclopedia. I am not interested to contribute to your website. I am only here to formally request that WHATSAPP UNIVERSITY wiki listing be deleted and to assist in that process. I also object to personal remarks directed at me and published in your website just above this block that we are scammers, thieves etc. who ought to be jailed.ShymalWhatsappUniversity (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have removed the objectionable remarks from your talk page. The block of your account appears to be correct. I suggest you email info-enwikimedia.org about your concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

• Just a note following my decline of your unblock request, the IP user that was bothering you has been blocked. See Special:Contributions/2A02:2F08:6300:B400:AAE5:47E1:5025:7523. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Dear PhilKnight and fellow administrators,

I appreciate the actions taken thus far regarding my concerns. However, I respectfully request that the remarks in question be removed from all Wikimedia resources, particularly those accessible to individuals who are not full-time Wikimedia Foundation officers.

I understand that Wikipedia relies on community-driven policies and guidelines. In light of this, I would like to address a few points:

1. The "Not Here" essay, as I understand it, is not an official accepted policy. Therefore, I question its applicability as grounds for blocking.
2. The principle of "Assume Good Faith" is particularly important for new users. I believe this principle should have been applied in my case.
3. I have endeavored to comply with Wikipedia's policies for organizations concerned about article content. For instance, my username includes my real name and affiliation with WHATSAPP UNIVERSITY, as per disclosure guidelines.
4. I did not edit the article directly but instead placed a request for deletion on the appropriate discussion page, providing my reasons.
5. I maintained civility throughout my interactions and did not issue any legal threats, despite experiencing what I perceived as harassment from an anonymous and abusive patently vandalizing user.
6. I did not revert any edits, even when faced with multiple consecutive reverts by said user.

While I am aware of recent Indian court cases regarding Wikipedia (such as Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturers Organisation of India v. Wikipedia Foundation Case, 2022 and Hewlett Packard India Sales v. the Commissioner of Customs Case, 2023 and even the recent ANI defamation suit for $25 million damages from Wikimedia ), I am not citing these as threats. Rather, I mention them to provide context for my perspective as an Indian citizen and representative of an Indian organization aggrieved by misleading content and such onwards links to about our brandname published on Wikipedia.

I sincerely hope we can find a constructive way forward that allows me to participate in the ongoing discussion regarding the article about my organization. I am open to guidance on how to contribute effectively within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ShymalWhatsappUniversity (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

1. It is difficult to assume good faith on you when you start calling names on other editor(s) and Wikipedia as a platform in general (Special:Diff/1237155965) even if you had a case.
2. While your comments on the AfD are not restored, anyone can restore them, with exception of what was written in the above diff that contains the insulting comment as it has been removed from public view.
3. Again, I hardly think insulting others and Wikipedia is being civil.
4. While you say you are not citing the cases as threats, some may take it as as one, do not do it again. Legal cases notwithstanding, a brand name would be concerned in any case with what's written on here (or elsewhere), but one would have to provide references other than 'I say so' per WP:VERIFY.

– robertsky (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

NB: I have sought assistance from experienced Wiki users to briefly respond to you.

1. The other "editor" is a notorious IP hopping Wikipedia vandal of long standing with multiple accounts (including administrator privileges on other Wikimedia projects). It is evident that Wikipedia's systems are unable to control such miscreants despite "ARBCOM" sanctions against them.
2. Your statement that "anyone"can restore my Revdelled AFD comments is as hollow as the PR slogan that "anyone" can edit Wikipedia.
3. Again, I was the one being insulted alongwith Dr. Ceri Brenner by this notorious vandal. It is very easy for you admins to go after soft targets like new users and block them, but impossible to control miscreants like that IP editor who know how to game the system intimately.
4. Since this is admittedly a matter of infringment and tarnishing of our Brandname by this website, the possibility of legal action canniot be ruled out. Civil discussion is always a precursor to legal action. Ill advised blocks by legally unqualified/inexperienced volunteer admins to create a chilling effect only escalates the probability of legal actions ensuing, as happened in the recent ANI matter [1]. The citaions were provided to convey that the Indian Supreme Court has RECENTLY held A) That Wikipedia is itself a source of mininformation, B) That aggrieved Indian persons should directly edit their own entries on Wikipedia to improve it. FYI, Brahma University had registered the name WHATSAPP UNIVERSITY as far back as 2016. Thus for Wikipedia's users to publish that it was coined by some Ravish Kumar in 2019 is palpably untrue. Lastly WP:VERIFY only applies to "mainspace" content.ShymalWhatsappUniversity (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

   Pretty sure "since this is admittedly a matter of infringment and tarnishing of our Brandname by this website, the possibility of legal action canniot be ruled out" would be interpreted by anyone as a legal threat. C F A 💬 19:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I have restored your comment in the AfD. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank You ShymalWhatsappUniversity (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

DEFAMATION OF WHATSAPP UNIVERSITY

@PhilKnight: We have noted that our request that the "WHATSAPP UNIVERSITY" entry be deleted from your website has not been respected in the AFD discussion. Instead the problem has been mischievously compounded by redirecting our brand name to a webpage Fake news in India simply to tranish the sterling reputation of our University. Wikipedia's webpage is #1 and our Webpage is #2 in search engine rankings for "Whatsapp University", so accordingly, i request you to kindly do one or both of the following things A) Delete the "Whatsapp University" webpage so that it does not show in search engines like Google, Bing etc. and/or B) Unblock my account so we can use Wikipedia's grievance redressal mechanisms unhindered. ShymalWhatsappUniversity (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but no to both of your requests. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Is the denial of providing us opportunity to utilise Wikipedia's grievance redrssal an affirmation that Wikipedia equates our brandname "Whatsapp University" to "Fake News in India" sp as to tarnish our assets and cause us loss of goodwill and repuation ? It seems that you are unaware that the last time Wikimedia Foundation and our affiliated organization had legal proceedings in Switzwerland it was bitterly contested with WMF spending over US$ 300,000 in legal fees - this can be independently confirmed from the ICANN.ORG website or from WMF (Legal). If Wikipedia does not wish for peaceful discussion should we instead send WMF a list of 50 Wikipedian contributors in India who shall be thrashed in their homes by our cadres - since our capability to do so is well known to many Wikipedian editors writing on India related topics and as archived on several talk pages on this website ? ShymalWhatsappUniversity (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are free to pursue legal action, as a sole admin it is not my place to take action against a recently closed AfD, or to unblock an editor after I have declined an unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 – robertsky (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)