User talk:Ahmed shahi

Welcome!

Hello Ahmed shahi, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Reconsider ! 11:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul city's population

Hi, The figure given by the MRRD of 3.4 million for the Kabul province, is not high at all. Many others sources give a figure around that number. However, I suggest using the official figures published by the CSO. For two reasons: first because it is the official statistics agency of Afghanistan (and there is no question of unreliability or whatever else), and secondly, because it is the most recent population estimation available. The CSO estimation is as of 2009, while the MRRD's is as of 2007 and the CSS's might be as of 2008. Please check this link: http://www.cso.gov.af/demography/population.html (the bottom row gives the estimation for the year 2009)

The source which you provided, CCS or NPS, is a secondary source. It is not like CSO and has no credibility. It has gathered all those information from other sources, probably from the UN, and has then prepared Kabul's profile. The figure which it gives for the Kabul city's population at 615,000 is obviously too low and unacceptable. First, it has not given any definition for "Urban area", what does it mean by that? Kabul PROVINCE has 15 districts, and Kabul city is one of its 15 districts. Kabul city is again divided into 18 districts called "Naahya". Now what does the term "urban area" refer to? Does it refer to the first and second districts or Naahya's of Kabul which are situated in the center of the city as the downtown? If it is, then it is imperfect. Kabul "city" is obviously larger and the urban population is certainly bigger. The term "urban" in the western countries has another definition according to different administration systems.

Now, I suggest using the CSO's official statistics of 3,568,500 for the Kabul province, and we can use the statistics of MRRD for the Kabul city (as a whole one district of Kabul province) of 1,925,548; which sounds totally reasonable. If you have lived in Kabul and have ever visited Kabul, you will agree that 615,000 is too low for the city, and the population is much more dense than that. Ariana (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is not high. The province is not a metropolitan area, province is more of a rural area. The Naval Postgraduate School is an accredited research university operated by the United States Navy and it states that the urban area (or inner city) of Kabul is made up of 615,900 residents.[1] The Afghan government (MRRD) states that the population of Kabul City is 1,925,548.[2] MRRD is refering to the Kabul District (metro area), which includes the small towns that are outside the urban area but still counted as part of the city. All the sources agree on the approximate 3.5 million population of Kabul province. I hope you understand all this. Thanks, Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC) The years (2007, 2008, 2009, and etc.) you mentioned doesn't affect the total numbers much. So don't let that worry you.Ahmed shahi (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me one good reason why do you move to secondary sources instead of sticking to the primary and official sources? The Central Statistics Office is the primary source of statistics and data in Afghanistan. It itself conducts the surveys and makes appropriate estimation. While NPS or CSS is a secondary source. It does NOT make the estimation by itself. It reports from other sources such as CSO, UNHCR, UNDP or other institutions.

Can you also please specify which areas of Kabul district the "urban area" that CSS/NPS mentions encompasses? And which are the small towns that the metropolitan area include? There is no small town within the Kabul district. There are 18 Naahya within the Kabul district as a city, but no small "towns".

I still suggest that we can add 1.9 million of MRRD for Kabul city/district and 3.5 million for the metropolitan area which would be the Kabul province. Let's see what other editors have to say on this. Then we can make a decision. Thanks. Ariana (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is @ Talk:Kabul#Discussion_between_User:Ahmed_Shahi_and_User:Ariana310.Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Afghanistan. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Hello, I think a mistake was made in blocking me. Please see the very bottom of Talk:Afghanistan#A_gentle_reminder. Secondly, User:Tajik misreported me at Edit_warring#User:Ahmed_shahi_reported_by_User:Tajik_.28Result:_31h.29. Sorry but the 1st, 2nd and 5th are not reverts, those are regular edits in which I fixed the IP's edits / added new information that was not there before / rephrased sentences, and etc. The 6th is reverting a new user, and I did that unintentionally because I thought it was my second revert only. It's unfair that you blocked me but not blocked User:Tajik and User:Inuit18 because they also violated the 3rr (see the bottom of my talk page below for evidence). I was peacefully discussing the matter with the administrator (User:Excirial) on the talk page of Afghanistan but the other 2 editors refused to join in, instead they worked as a team to get me blocked so they can laugh about it, one misreported me on the administrator board and the other edit-warred. It's obvious they know one another because Inuit18 logged on and appeared from no where to assist Tajik. They don't like me because I'm not from the same ethnic line as them, and for them Wikipedia is a place to make their personal ethnic hate scores. These 2 editors are only editing ethnic stuff with Persian-ethnocentric POVs, they remove any source that's from Afghanistan or is written by Pashtuns. The fake sources they usually add to back up their POV cannot be verified.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have accepted your unblock request for the following reasons:

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Afghanistan, and i think your input should be included as well. The Afghanistan article is currently edit protected for three days so i don't think you will violate 3RR on it.
You have not been blocked or warned before, and the blocking administrator (Tim Song) indicated he would accept unblocking and page protection as an alternative to just one block. Besides, your comments show that you are willing to discuss the issue rather then forcing it.
The second editor reverting you has left no rationale for the reverts, which makes it appear like baiting someone to cross 3RR.

However, i would point to my comment below though, regarding the way man should deal with reverts and editors not present on the talk page, and i ask you to follow that method over reverting other editors. And keep in mind that unblock requests are about the blocked user, not about other users :).

Request handled by: Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)}

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Taking a look at the scenario myself, perhaps full protection of the article in question would be a possible alternative approach here till discussions occur on the talk page. However, it is possible I am missing some context since this has been to RFPP and ANEW already. Thus I will contact the blocking admin User:Tim Song, commenting admin User:Bwilkins, and the admin who handled the RPP report User:Excirial. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All contacted by this timestamp. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To extend my comment here, I think protection would be useful since from previous issues it seems that all involved parties (except perhaps the IP address) know what they are doing. A previous edit warring report was closed warning all involved editors to discuss. [3]. --Taelus (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I'm wrongly accused and wrongly blocked, and I think it'll be wise to have the Afganistan article protected to a previous NPOV version that doesn't mention ethnicity, tribes, and religious garbage in the introduction page. Thanks,Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but your request sounds a little like this. Daniel Case (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm confused about all this and if you're interested you may read my point of argument all the way down below. [4] Thanks, Ahmed shahi (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be brief, since I'm very busy atm. The reverts are cited in the AN3 report, so there's definitely a 3RR vio by AS. I was not aware of the 1RR/week restriction on Tajik - which, BTW, is not logged on WP:RESTRICT as far as I can see. No one but AS violated 3RR, and I was rather reluctant to reprotect so soon after the last protection expired. If anyone thinks protection is preferable, feel free to protect & unblock. Tim Song (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling it was going to end up like this when i noticed the article. Ahmed, i am a bit disappointed to be honest - i clearly warned about 3RR and yet you went over it. If you have three reverts a day on a specific page you should not be reverting that page again, unless it is clearly for one of the reasons detailed in WP:3RR. Equally an unblock request should be talking about your own actions instead of the actions of others. Talking about someone else is a WP:WAX argument as it doesn't deal with your own edits - two wrongs don't make a right.

However, i admit that i am not to fond of the reverts that Inuit18 made, and i left them a message about it here. Even so, if you find yourself in a situations such as this one again leave the editors in question a message on their talk pages, asking if they would like to join in into the discussion on the talk page. After that hold of for 24 hours and see if they join into the discussion. If they join in you can discuss the issue, or ask for dispute resolution if you don't seem to agree with each other. If they refuse to comment during that time - especially if they are editing in the meantime, which shows they have logged in and seen the message bar - you can reinstate your changes after a day. If they revert your changes again leave them another note urging them to the talk page. If that does not help i would say they are disruptive as they refuse to enter into consensus building, and in those cases you can file a WP:AN3 or WP:ANI report requesting assistance with the situation. But try to take the initiative by asking them to join in, as this clearly shows that you wish to debate the issue. I cannot stress this enough - don't edit war even if you are absolutely right. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm just going to find another hobby because I know this'll never come to a peaceful end. Hardly no one was editing the page until I appeared, that's when all these Persian editors came to change my edits with their POVs. Ahmed shahi (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding to leave is of course entirely up to you, and i will not be persuading you to stay around with tales of roses and sunshine. Even so, your account is unblocked should you wish to return or resume editing. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the unblock, I'll just avoid editing Afghanistan because it's a place of war. Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inuit18's 3rr

Inuit18 reverted 3 times straight in a row, and he has been blocked a number of times before (see evidence here and here). Below is his latest 3rr violation on Afghanistan.

His 1st revert

His 2nd revert

His 3rd revert

Tajik's violation of one revert per page per week

After coming across this finding and this, I began to realize that Tajik is limited to only one revert per page per week. I'm finding that he violated the one revert per page per week as well as the 3rr per 24-hour period. See below

You have read WP:NOTTHEM, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that but thanks for pointing it. I made a separate section as you can see here to remind other adminstrators what I've discovered about the other editors involved. As for the unblock request, 3 of my actions reported were not reverts and the last (6th) was unintentional at which point I had already explained it to the administrator (User:Excirial) and was waiting for his response but before that took place another administrator (User:Tim Song) blocked me.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many articles Tajik cites information from Encyclopaeda Iranica but then tosses away Afghanistan sources, I find this disturbing.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana310's 3rr

User:Ariana310 is another Persian-ethnocentric editor and has just violated the 3rr. See below

His 1st revert

His 2nd revert

His 3rd revert

In addition to helping one another in edit-war, Ariana310 is also showing strong opposition to this reliable source which I cited in the Afghanistan article. The information provided in the Sabawoon Online website (Afghanpedia) is accurate enough. These 3 editors are aggressively rejecting it because it's an Afghanistan source and not Iranian. Anyway, this is what the source states:

“

LAST AFGHAN EMPIRE

Overthrow of foreign rule

Periodic attempts were made to gain independence. In 1709 Mirwais Khan, a leader of the Hotak , led a successful rising against Gorgin Khan, the Persian governor of Qandahar.

The Hotakis. Mirwais Khan governed Qandahar until his death in 1715. In 1716 the Abdalis of Herat, encouraged by his example, took up arms against the Persians and under their leader, Asadullah Khan, succeeded in liberating their province. Mahmud, Mirwais's young son and successor, was not content with holding Qandahar, and in 1722 he led some 20,000 men against Isfahan; the Safavid government surrendered after a six-month siege.

Mahmud died in 1725 and was succeeded by Ashraf, who had to contend with Russian pressure from the north and Ottoman Turk advances from the west. Shah Ashraf halted both the Russian and Turkish onslaughts, but a brigand chief, Nader Qoli Beg, defeated the Afghans at Damghan in October 1729 and drove them from Persia. During the retreat Ashraf was murdered, probably on orders from his cousin, who was then holding Qandahar.

Nader Shah. Nader Qoli Beg took Herat in 1732 after a desperate siege. Impressed by their courage, Nader recruited many Heratis to serve in his army. He was elected shah of Persia, with the name Nader Shah, in 1736.

In 1738, after a year's siege, the city of Qandahar fell to Nader Shah's army of 80,000 men. Nader Shah seized Ghazna and Kabul and occupied the Mughal capital at Delhi in 1739. His booty included the Koh-i-noor diamond and the Peacock Throne. He was assassinated at Khabushan in 1747, which led to the disintegration of his empire and the rise of the last great Afghan empire.

”

I cited the above source in the end of this line "The political history of the modern state of Afghanistan began with the rise of the Hotaki dynasty in the early-18th century or more specifically when Ahmad Shah Durrani established his Afghan Empire in 1747" (*here*) in the Afghanistan intro page. It's quite clear that both the Hotakis and the Durranis struggled against foreign rule to gain an independent nation in the end, and both of these important Afghan kingdoms make up Afghanistan's political history. At one point they fought one another and in the end they became united to form their own nation which remains to now. This is what readers of the world who want to learn about Afghanistan should know. I'm not pushing ethnocentric POV with this. There are probably 1,000s of books written about Afghanistan and its history, and they ALL explain the same exact stuff you see above, why are these Persian-ethnocentric editors refusing to accept this? I'm just amazed at what kind of people exist in the world today. I also find the way they write the sentences in the articles very poorly. Ahmed shahi (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally absurd. Those 3RR reverts that you are accusing me of is against the IP address Special:Contributions/98.28.172.69 who was continuously adding the text without discussing it. If that were the case, then I might have committed several 3RR reverts against that IP address. Adding the text without discussing it and without giving a good reason, and that being by an IP address, is considered vandalism. So those are all reverts of vandalism. But later on Special:Contributions/98.28.172.69 decided to discuss the issue in Talk:Afghanistan#Edit_request_from_98.28.172.69.2C_2_May_2010 - after that Afghanistan article was fully protected.

User:Excirial is already in the picutre, because I requested several times the Semi-Protection of the page due to the unexplained edits by that IP address, and I did mention that I was reverting its edits continuously.

User:Ahmed shahi please end your false accusations. Ariana (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Hatch Dupree

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nancy Hatch Dupree, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.dupreefoundation.org/aboutus.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to expand the article properly when I get a chance.Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Nancy Hatch Dupree

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Nancy Hatch Dupree, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.dupreefoundation.org/aboutus.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Nancy Hatch Dupree and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Nancy Hatch Dupree, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Nancy Hatch Dupree with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Nancy Hatch Dupree. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Nancy Hatch Dupree saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the blanking, as the material is a close paraphrase which still infringes copyright. As the template says, "Do not edit the page until an administrator or an OTRS agent has resolved the issue." To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to create a temporary subpage. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but in the end the article will remain on Wikipedia and you will go away. Copyvio is mostly when someone copy pastes the text from a website, that's not the case here though. But since you insist to take this that far I'll wait for admins to decide.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we have different definitions of what "wait for admins to decide" means. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was only for the reason that you found my creation of the page as a possible copyvio but now I have fixed that problem and there is no reason for me to wait for weeks just because you want me to wait. I suggest you go play somewhere else because I don't have time for this and please leave me and my work alone.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hi, Can you please create up just a blank user page so that your name does not show up in Red? You're actively contributing in the edits, that's why. It's just a suggestion, nothing more. Ariana (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to WP:AN, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul

Salaam! Please check my comments in Talk:Kabul#Discussion_between_User:Ahmed_Shahi_and_User:Ariana310. I modified the Kabul city and Kabul province's population figures. Ariana (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Faisal Shahzad. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

I made a complaint in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ahmed_shahi. Ariana (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Religion is appropriate in the lede where it is material to the person's motives. If you see any other bios where it is missing, feel free to move it up.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. The motive of this person is not clear. Many people turn out like this in the west due to financial difficulties so what does religion has to do with it? I can show you news reports about Hindus, Christians, Athiests, Jews and others who killed their entire family due to financial difficulties in recent years. In this case, it was a Muslim from Pakistan. Do you see religion stated in the start of every other person in Wikipedia?Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. And RSs have indicated his statement as to motive relating to Islam. If there are any people from other religions who are arrested for and admit to similar acts, stating that they have done them based on their view that their religion is being attacked, please feel free to make similar additions to their bios.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kabul Province

It is you who is removing sourced and accurate information. Unlike Kabul, there should be no dispute over Kabul Province, because there is no urban or metropolitan areas that you are confusing the definitions of. The CSO is completely direct and specific about the figure: Kabul Province's population as of 2009 : 3.4 million. That's it! While you are adding sources from previous years such as 2006, 2007 and 2008.

I think you don't have enough knowledge about how to report the statistics. In statistical issue, you always write the latest data available. You don't go citing the outdated data and then writing in the article: "......is some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million." This is absurd and scientifically wrong; you should be specific about the data (you should not say between this number and that number, unless the source says so). Go ask any editor and he/she will give you the same response. Ariana (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Following a recent thread at WP:ANI, I have offered to mediate in a dispute between editors.

I consider that the mediation process is open to everyone. In particular, it is open to editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute, and to editors who have never edited this article.

I will post this message at the talk pages of Kabul and Kabul Province, at WP:ANI, and on the talk pages of the editors who appear to be involved already.

You may, if you wish, re-post this message elsewhere. If you choose to do so I strongly recommend you post this message and not a new message. I would also strong recommend you read and understand WP:CANVAS before doing so!

The mediation process will take place at User:TFOWR/Kabul.

Thank you! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other two editors have begin to discuss the issue over at User:TFOWR/Kabul. I'd be very glad to hear your views, too. In particular, I've recently added a question directed at you, which I'd be keen to hear your response to. Many thanks! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik

Leave him alone. He's blocked for a week and nothing either of you can say is going to persuade me to do anything about that. Baiting him on his talk page is not helpful to him, to me, to the dispute or to the encyclopaedia. If you edit his talk page again except with his explicit permission before the expiry of the block, I will block you for the remainder of his block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but since I'm tired of my name being discussed everywhere, I just wanted to clarify to others that I'm not doing what he accuses me of.Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you agree to a ban on any interaction with or comment on Tajik? I think this is going to be the best way to get this dispute sorted out and get you both to focus on the issue rather than each other, but I'd rather it was voluntary. If you agree, I'll draw up a page in my userspace to document it on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anything that keeps him away from me.Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, after you blocked editor (User:Tajik), editor Alefbe (talk · contribs) showed up and began making the same vandalism reverts [5] [6] [7] with the same POV as Tajik. In a number of other incidents when Tajik is involved in edit-wars, Alefbe shows up the same way and reverts pages for Tajik. I have reasons to believe that Alefbe may be Tajik. What are we suppose to do in such a situation?Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'd be surprised, but if you have solid evidence, WP:SPI is the place to go. You need a checkuser (I'm not one) but they'll only check if you have evidence- it's not a fishing expedition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check that but isn't what Alefbe did in the above 3 pages vandalism or a violation? If that is not disruptive edits then I don't what is.Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive... possibly. Vandalism? No. Let me look into them, but I'm not taking sides here- the only reason Tajik is blocked is because he did something blockable, the only reason you're not is because you haven't explicitly violated any restrictions or "bright-line" rules. Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in this dispute but, as a general rule, if the same dispute crops up on my watchlist 3 times in 1 day, I'm not going to be terribly happy. Nonetheless, I will look in Alfbe. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all that. You see I don't want to get my self blocked so that's why I try my best not to start edit-war or do disruptive stuff. As you can see that nobody else has any problems with me or my edits, it's just this one particular person who began stalking me. This Tajik fellow is after me because of my race, religion, membership in a particular social group, and etc.

I have suspicion that he may be using proxy servers [8] to create accounts with IPs from different countries as a way to fool WP:SPI. I suspected another editor (User:Ariana310) of being him and he wrote: "If you have any doubt me being User:Tajik, then you can easily report me to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. Please do so. They will check the IP and locations from where we login to wikipedia. Get convinced, because I don't wanna be accused again and again by baseless presumptions."

In this case, it's not only the IP or ISP that has to match but also the action, intention, behaviour, view points, timing and so on. They (User:Tajik, User:Ariana310, User:Alefbe and User:Inuit18) are believed to be Shia ethnic Afghan Tajiks who are engaged in promoting Iranian culture and they have been strongly opposing me and my edits. I find this very strange because majority of Afghan Tajiks are Sunni and proud of their country, and they don't stick that hard to Iran except a small tiny Shia Tajik population. There is not a slight difference in the opinions and view points of these 4. So, I would say 90% chance it is the same person. Not many editors underline sentences but by coincident Arian310 does it [9] and so does Tajik.[10] Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into one of them and didn't find anything convincing. It is possible that people legitimately disagree with you y'know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Encyclopædia Britannica, Library of Congress Country Studies, ABC News as the sources and if an editor disagrees with these source then it's the editor who has a problem. I'm not making up the 42 million as the total number of Pashtuns but tajik and alefbe are changing the 42 to 40 without citing any source."Alefbe... Difference between 40 and 42 is not important. The important thing is to be loyal to cited sources (such as Iranica)" I'm not pushing POV, so it's irrelevant if somebody disagrees with my edits because they are properly sourced. If they don't see this then they are just trying to start a problem with me, and I'm not looking for trouble as I have explained to you.Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review User:HJ Mitchell/Interaction ban. If you ave questions, you can post them to the talk page of the page and once you're happy, please sign in the appropriate section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I agree to your contract I must inform some other adminis to make sure everything is according to the rules of Wikipedia, give me some time plz.Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely fine, though this isn't really a big deal. Find yourself an experienced editor to confirm everything's above board and they can sign the page as a witness if you want. You might be able to find someone at WP:EAR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your assistance. I'll slowly solve this problem without getting sucked into edit-wars, and I think violaters should serve their block fully otherwise they'll continue to be disruptive over again especially someone who has almost 10 blocks.Ahmed shahi (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR and Kabul / Kabul Province mediation

Hi!

To encourage the mediation process to continue, I've made some changes! I've created separate pages for the three editors currently involved. I'd like to invite you to review your page, which is here. It's entirely possible that I've made mistakes when creating the page and moving content from the previous page - please do feel free to correct and errors I may have made.

Best wishes, TFOWR^propaganda 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Continued edit warring, forum shopping, incivility and a strange obsession with User:Tajik after warnings and attempts to help.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Unblock|I believe that editor HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) has abused his adminship power by wrongfully blocking me for a week. I didn't edit-war or done forum shopping or incivlity or have any strange obsession with User:Tajik as falsely charged by User:HJ Mitchell. I was helping to explain in a very civil manner to the "general editors at large" my reason for citing a recent source in the Pashtun people article and as a payback for my long research HJ Mitchell decided to block me for a week. See Talk:Pashtun_people#article_tagged I have reasons to believe that HJ Mitchell is biased, his actions in my case show that he is likely prejudice toward Muslims which is the case with most non-Muslims today, particularily toward Afghans who are at war with the West. Wikipedia should not allow biased and prejudice people to become admins. I'm going to file complaints until HJ Mitchell's adminship is removed because I'm falsely charged and wrongly blocked by him. It is unfair and cruel for what HJ Mitchell has done to me, he has discredited my name.}}

That just lost you your talk page access. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"HJ Mitchell is biased, his actions in my case show that he is likely prejudice toward Muslims"? That right there? That's a personal attack and if it wasn't directed at me, I'd extend your block an revoke your talk page access. I've spent a lot of my time trying to help you and Tajik over the last few days and yet you continue to go to every forum you can find to accuse of him of sock puppetry without a shred of evidence. You were also previously warned for baiting Tajik and you can't claim I'm biased because I previously blocked Tajik and unblocked him only on the condition that he not interact with you. I've come to the conclusion that you yo are determined to persist in pushing your POV (I don't give a shit if it's right or wrong, that was what the mediation was supposed to be for) and everybody who disagrees with you is biased and/or a sockpuppet. Until you can get over this obsession with Tajik and edit in a manner compatible with a collegial environment, I cannot see a future for you on Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I alleged that editor Inuit18 (talk · contribs) is a proxy of editor Tajik and admin User:Toddst1 stated to me"You may be right..." HJ Mitchell, you are blindly supporting Tajik against me, and you're not even familiar with the area in which we are editing. You blocked Tajik because he violated and then allowed him back one day later probably because you wanted to have fun, watching two Muslims argue in talk pages so you can block both.Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully at my history I haven't been editing much so how can I be charged with the following nonsense... "Disruptive editing: Forum shopping, edit warring, incivility, baiting? Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Tajik vandalized this page and I only reverted [11] then editor Inuit18 vandalized this page and I reverted him [12]. As a thank you, HJ Mitchell blocked me for a week.
HJ Mitchell lied to User:Bwilkins ..."I've blocked Ahmed shahi because he's posted this message to everyone..."

Comment - I only send an informative message to 2 admins (User:Toddst1 and User:Bwilkins) because these two (2) were involved in blocking and unblocking editor Inuit18 (talk · contribs) and both needed to be aware of my new findings.

HJ Mitchell further lied by stating "...is deliberately stalling on signing up to an interaction ban between him and Tajik..."

Comment' - Firstly, nobody can force me to sign an interation ban with another. Secondly, I'm a busy person in the real world and this is why I don't edit much so obviously I have much more important things to do in life. In fact, I told HJ Mitchel "Before I agree to your contract I must inform some other adminis to make sure everything is according to the rules of Wikipedia, give me some time plz." and JH Mitchell responded "That's absolutely fine, though this isn't really a big deal. Find yourself an experienced editor to confirm everything's above board and they can sign the page as a witness if you want. You might be able to find someone at WP:EAR.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Comment - As I was in the process of finding admins to help me with the problem, HJ Mitchell decided to get me blocked for one week. Conside the fact that this is basically my first block because the other one wasn't really counted. In conclusion, I want to say that HJ Mitchell abused his admin power because he got sucked into the dispute between me and Tajik, and instead of helping us, HJ Mitchell decided just block me. And, even if Tajik is totally wrong, HJ Mitchell still favors him.Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist, though I am from England. I didn't know you were Muslim or Afghan until you just told me! As for Tajik, I blocked him for edit warring at the start of the week, did I not? That's some real bias! I only unblocked him on the condition that he not interact with or comment on you, meanwhile you've gone all over Wikipedia accusing him of sock puppetry. That's uncivil at best and an egregious personal attack at worst. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh a person who has the name Ahmad and who edits Muslim articles (particularliy Afghanistan (99% Muslim nation)) you didn't know I was Muslim or Afghan. I'll just say That's nice in response to that. We Muslims are nearly 25% of the world's total population and we demand to be respected, to be treated equal as all other humans. I'm not against Tajik because of his ethnicity or cultural background or what have you, and Tajik has the right to argue in talk pages but he cannot place his limited Persian views in articles. That's the only issue with him and me.Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I believe that editor HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) has abused his adminship power by wrongfully blocking me for a week. I didn't edit-war or done forum shopping or incivlity or have any strange obsession with User:Tajik as falsely charged by User:HJ Mitchell. I was helping to explain in a very civil manner to the "general editors at large" my reason for citing a recent source in the Pashtun people article and as a payback for my long research HJ Mitchell decided to block me for a week. See Talk:Pashtun_people#article_tagged
I have reasons to believe that HJ Mitchell is biased, his actions in my case show that he is likely prejudice toward Muslims which is the case with most non-Muslims today, particularily toward Afghans who are at war with the West. Wikipedia should not allow biased and prejudice people to become admins. I'm going to file complaints until HJ Mitchell's adminship is removed because I'm falsely charged and wrongly blocked by him. It is unfair and cruel for what HJ Mitchell has done to me, he has discredited my name.

Decline reason:

I've examined not only everything you've had to say here but quite a chunk of your recent edit history as well. Without even considering "who's prejudiced against whom and why", you were blocked for forum shopping, edit warring, incivility and baiting, all of which I believe you have exhibited in the last little while, and I see no reason here to disturb this block. To quote your own statement above, "I think violaters should serve their block fully otherwise they'll continue to be disruptive over again." I suggest you use this time to reflect on what you want to contribute here and how you plan to interact with others within Wikipedia's boundaries. I will also add, just to be completely clear: to the best of my knowledge and belief, I have never had any interaction whatsoever with any of the individuals mentioned on this page. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:34, 21 May 2010 (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.

This thread on ANI might be of interest to you. I'm requesting review of this action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block reset

Due to your clear evasion of your block as reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed shahi, I have reset your block. It will now expire one week from now. Regards, –MuZemike 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your repeated and continued evasion of your block, I have extended your block to indefinite. Regards, –MuZemike 17:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins

This edit on the talk page of this user's most recent sock explained the following:

For future (and well considered) unblock requests, email the appropriate emails (to User:Arbitration Committee or those found at WP:UNBLOCK) from your main account, User:Ahmed shahi - email is still enabled for this account. Abuse of this process will mean email is switched off, and more socking will result in unblock requests being declined

Thus, one can consider the user warned as to the penalties for misusing the email option, and the penalties of repeated socking and what this will do to his chances. I record this warning here for the benefit of admins assessing this user in the future; he cannot argue that he was not informed. Permanent link to this revision is as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahmed_shahi&oldid=372247386

Regards, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]