| Revision as of 04:23, 29 November 2007 view sourceSQL (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators28,464 edits →Banned: cmt← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:40, 10 May 2010 view source Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators63,401 editsm Cleaning up redirect | ||
| (68 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{archive box|box-width=14em|image-width=20px| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ]}} | |||
| == Hissami == | |||
| I do not know this individual, but I do know he/she supports the same demonym stance as me. ] 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Tajik == | |||
| I don't know why you are sending around this banned user's edit from months ago to various admin talk pages. In the future, simply revert the edit and let him know that his ban will continue to be reset as long as he evades it. All appeals of ArbCom bans must go through ArbCom anyway, and none of the people you contacted could do anything about the matter even if they wanted. ]·] 20:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Afghanistan == | |||
| can you please stop removing official Afghan gov. websites from the external links section under Afghanistan article.--] 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == IP: ] == | |||
| Please keep an eye on some articles, such as ], ], or ]. The IP is a ] from the German Misplaced Pages who has a . He is a typical ] who does not accept scholastic sources (that's why he has deleted the reference to the ]). | |||
| Put those articles on your watchlist and next time he starts to vandalize, report him to an admin! You can also ask ] for help. | |||
| Behnam sent me this. I think it's prudent that I pass it along: | |||
| I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (]/]/etc). I am very sure that once again this ] is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you. | |||
| *1) Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for '''just one''' unreferenced edit? | |||
| *2) This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles '''infobox''' that he was born in Multan. | |||
| *3) I explained that edit on the talk page | |||
| *4) Putting ] sounds POVish | |||
| *5) This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism! | |||
| *6) The president's website is already on the president's article (]). | |||
| *7) I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see | |||
| *8) I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page! | |||
| Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock so another admin can see my explanation. | |||
| --] (]) 03:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Block== | |||
| Due to your continued disruptive behavior, making unsubstanited claims of people being a child molester, removing official links, etc, you have been blocked for a week. See , , , , , , , and more.Continued disruption will result in an indef block. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=CLAIMS!? Go read a book on him! He was what we call a "bachabaz" (boy player). In those times this was very common for a powerful king to have male concubines! And Abdali was born in Multan and it's REFERENCED in the aticle here. It's not vandalism! As for removing links... read the source! There is NOTHING linking "Pactyans" to Pashtuns! And I've EXPLAINED this on the talk page here! What the heck am I being banned for!? -- Behnam (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)|decline=I'm afraid not. You have a healthy block log and evidently have yet to appreciate the rules by which we live here. You are not banned, but blocked for a period of time. Please use the time to review our rules of conduct and behavior. — ]<sub>]</sub> 22:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Just a note, but ''none'' of the sources you provided at any time reference him being a "child molester"; I think that's the issue here. --] (]) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::not to mention the sex slave edit. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I never said I did provide a source for that. I said it's ALREADY sourced and it's STILL in the article's infobox with citation that he was born in Multan!!! So I'm being blocked because of '''just one''' unreferenced edit (which is common knowledge that kings of that time had sex with young boys). What about the THOUSANDS of other unreferenced edits!? -- ] (]) 22:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Behnam sent me this. I think it's prudent that I pass it along: | |||
| I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (]/]/etc). I am very sure that once again this ] is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you. | |||
| *1) Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for '''just one''' unreferenced edit? | |||
| *2) This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles '''infobox''' that he was born in Multan. | |||
| *3) I explained that edit on the talk page | |||
| *4) Putting ] sounds POVish | |||
| *5) This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism! | |||
| *6) The president's website is already on the president's article (]). | |||
| *7) I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see | |||
| *8) I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page! | |||
| Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock so another admin can see my explanation. | |||
| --] (]) 03:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have only blocked you two times, not three. Any admin can see and read anything you've done--so yes they had every chance to see everything. I did not protect your talk page, someone else did. See my above entry of 23:25 too. You are not totally innocent in this or you wouldn't have the long block log that you do have nor have gotten your talk page protected; you even got indef blocked once and there are several admins who agree with me. What evidence you have that Hurooz is a sock? The whole root of this problem is that too many people who edit the articles you are interested in simply can't learn to get along with each other. Think about it. Finally, both sides of this topic you and Hurooz are in please go find another admin from now on.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Let's discuss this, then=== | |||
| So, I'm willing to sit down, have a cup of tea, and listen to what you have to say about the circumstances surrounding your block. However, I know that I, and I'm sure everyone else who will be dealing with this, would appreciate it if you tried to keep ], and just generally keep the tone ]. I'll work hard to do the same. --] (]) 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I had previously blocked user's IP for evading the block but have unblocked so that they may discuss this.--] 05:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello again. Thank you very much. I do apologize for my previous frustration. It was as a result of the fact that recently the Admin ] has been pushed by certain users to get me banned. Rlevse has blocked me twice recently, and in the end he ended up unblocking me after further investigation (it was determined that the users asking for a block on me were sockpuppets of a user that was banned long ago, ]). Once again, a brand new ] appears and is somehow familiar with me and all my past edits and block and tries to get me banned by misrepresenting my diffs to Rlevse. So it was very frustrating that this is happening for the 3rd time. | |||
| But enough about that, I don't want to complicate things for you guys. | |||
| Basically, if you take a look at all this edits that I am accused of breaking rules on, there is nothing wrong any of them and I have not broken any rules at all. Infact in several of these diffs I have RV'ed vandalism (removing of sourced material) or removed POVs. Here they all explained: | |||
| *1)Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge to people with a backround in the history of the region that kings at that time had sex with young boys. I did not feel the need to reference at the time because I assumed it would be common knowledge for people interested in this topic. | |||
| *2) This is an RV of vandalism. It is already sourced in the articles '''infobox''' that he was born in Multan. Please just take a look a the infobox on that version. | |||
| *3) I explained that edit on the talk page . | |||
| *4) Putting ] sounds POVish, so I removed it to make it sound more neutral. | |||
| *5) This is an RV of an edit where some just inserted a large chunk of new content. It was very poorly written as you can see, that's why I removed it. | |||
| *6) The president's website is already on the president's article (]) and I don't think it needs to be on Afghanistan's article. | |||
| *7) I listened to him and asked for a guidance on external links, see . | |||
| *8) I RV'ed vandalism, someone removed '''referenced content'''. Not only did they remove well referenced content, there was consensus on this, please see the talk page . | |||
| Please take a look at these one by one and then please make a decision on whether I broke any rules. Thanks. -- ] (]) 09:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, just to start off I don't think anyone is trying to get you ] here; a ban is different from a ] and much more serious. Admins can't ban people on their own — so, don't worry; you ''will'' be back editing within a week no matter what. | |||
| :However, I think the problem people are having with your edits is that you're making some pretty inflammatory statements without providing sources, and then trying to keep them in without providing sources. For instance, in diffs 1 and 2 above, they both insert the "child molester/sex slave" comment without a source — I think that's the main source of umbrage here. Now, I'm not from the region, so I will take your word that it's common knowledge but since this is the English Misplaced Pages a statement like that really requires a citation, since most English speakers would have no idea what that word meant. There's also something distinct to be said about the term "child molester" in this context, since that term has a strong (modern) connotation which is probably not accurate given the historical context. | |||
| :With respect to some of the other edits, like (3), you were aware they were contentious but did them anyways — you should try to get ] ''first'' for your removal, when you expect them to be disputed. It's good to see that you're using the talk pages, but you've got the order backwards in the case of contentious material IMO. With 5, you should improve poorly written prose, not remove it solely because it's poorly worded. | |||
| :Anyways, the kind of general impression that you get from these edits is that of someone with an agenda. I'm not saying that you ''have'' one, but that it's the kind of thing that a person would draw out of it. With your long block history for edit warring over this subject area, it's probably not totally off base — at the very least, this is a subject which you are very passionate about. | |||
| :I'm willing to consider unblocking you, and I think Rlevse will go along since he's already commented that your comment have merit, but I'm interested in using this as an opportunity to try to calm down some of the edit warring that goes on around these topics — and try to set you on the right track, when you're unblocked. Now, what do you think would be a good kind of general agreement we could both live with about how you edit? I think a good start would be a commitment to discuss contentious edits ''before'' you make them and get ], to refrain from edit warring, and to source statements which a ''general'' reader would not know as common knowledge. These are all things which I think you will be doing anyways, so hopefully you won't think this too onerous — but I'm willing to listen to your suggestions as well. --] (]) 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. Yes that is very reasonable. I will definitely use the Talk page for contentious edits '''before''' I edit. And come to think of it, you're right, we shouldn't assume that the reader has any background knowledge in these topics. Well another suggestion I would have for myself is to be more patient. I have a tendency to loose my patience and edit quickly. I think that's the main thing that might get me into edit wars sometimes. Overall, I totally understand you're reasoning also and I will make the utmost attempt to improve on these areas. Thank you for the guidance. -- ] (]) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No worries. I will talk to Rlevse about unblocking you early. You might have to wait a little bit. --] (]) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| No problem, there's no rush. Thank you. -- ] (]) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Rlevse has agreed, so I've unblocked you. Good luck, and happy editing. --] (]) 01:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your understanding. Take care. -- ] (]) 01:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==About a revert== | |||
| Did you actually mean to restore vandalism as indicated by this edit summary or was it a mistake? When reverting we need to go back and look at the history in case we revert to a vandalized version. Thanks.--] 03:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Your request for checkuser == | |||
| Beh-nam, I have formatted your Request for CheckUser into it's own page, as it is normally done, and requested additional information from you. You can view the case ]. --] <small>]</small> 14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Afghani & Afghanistani== | |||
| I am sorry, but I don't see that the extensive discussion of last July is passé. If you mean by new sources the ones listed by ], I do not find them very convincing. Yes some English speakers do use Afghani, even fewer use Afghanistani, but by far and away the most common usage is Afghan, and by that as English speakers we do not mean Pashtun, even if Persian speakers do. When we say Afghan it includes Tajiks and Uzbeks and even Hazaras. --] (]) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This is an academic encyclepedia and we provide what is true and right. If English speakers use Afghan for non pashtuns then they are making a mistake and it should be corrected.Anoshirawan 04:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ---- | |||
| '' | |||
| Constitution of Afghanistan | |||
| Article Four Ch. 1, Art. 4 | |||
| The nation of Afghanistan is comprised of the following ethnic groups: Pashtun, Taji, Hazara, Uzbak, Turkman, Baluch, Pashai, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui and others. | |||
| '''The word Afghan applies to every citizen of Afghanistan.''''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| Official sources override your opinions. | |||
| --] (]) 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Wait, so you are saying '''I''' have an agenda!?!? Until the constitution is changed to meet your particular needs, the official stance is stated quite clearly. And since the two of you are blaming this Afghan/Afghanistani "misunderstanding" on the English/Farsi language barrier, it should be noted that the Dari and Pashto texts state "Afghan" as the official denom. | |||
| "Bar har fardy az afraad milat-e Afghanistan kalima-e Afghan atlaaq meshawad." | |||
| Please, go to Afghanistan and ask them what they call themselves. Come to Virginia or California, to any function, restaurant, or business run by Afghans of any ethnicities. Tell them they are not "Afghan". I have no agenda other than provide mainstream information. It is clear to me what you people are doing. It is no different from Fascists or Nazis. First you vilify an entire population, then you start chipping away at their history until there's nothing left. You denigrate and delegitimize their leaders and institutions. In doing so, you hope to turn public opinion against the public enemy that you have created through your propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies. There is no honor in that. | |||
| --] (]) 19:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| What's your dispute is about? The references were already cited. Copy-edit was already done. I even did a spell-check. You're just pushing Tajik's little disputes into Misplaced Pages by blindly reverting the articles. This is what is called ]. Regards. ] (]) 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Now, i realized that you did the same kind of revert for the ] article. You're always writing the same type of edit-summaries as "''use the talk page'' or ''explain your edits''" but you never comment on the talk/discussion pages but simply revert to Tajik's version. ] (]) 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == E104421 & sockpuppets of vandal == | |||
| Beh-nam, you may be interested in this: - E104421 is harassing you and he is working with sockpuppets of ] (known as ] in the German Misplaced Pages). You should ask for a checkuser file: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| The IPs have been vandalizing various articles, including ], ], ], etc. E104421 is the ] of these IP socks. His edits are identical to those of the IP-socks. He also blindly reverted your edit to the version of the IP, ignoring that you had reverted to the FA consensus. He was corrected by Pejman. But this clearly shows that E104421 does not assume good faith and that his (blind) edits are nationalistically and ethnically motivated. His latest revert in the ] page is exactly the same as those of the IP socks. It's always the same edit, always the same revert - their edits are identical. And it was the 5th time that E104421 has reverted to the same wrong version, removing authoritative sources: | |||
| Also, E104421 is on a 1RR parole in all Turkish-, Iranian-, Azeri-, and Armenian-related articles. If you see him revert more than one time, report him. | |||
| Good luck! | |||
| : Checkuser shows that it is likely that the IPs were ]. Remember that ] was also banned, although checkuser had only found out that '''' that ] was him. Until today, ] is listed as a sockpuppet of ]. According to the ''same'' rules, ] needs to be banned because of multiple IP sockpuppets and ]. Good job, Beh-nam. | |||
| == Edit warring block == | |||
| You have both been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring in the ] article. Please take this time to cool down, and ''discuss'' changes to the articles on ] before you resume editing; further escalation would not be productive. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{uw-blocked|time=24 hours|reason=edit warring}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Please take a look at the edit summaries on that article by that user. They make no sense and can be considered vandalism. I provided several easy to understand explanations but this user was ignoring them. In my mind, I was reverting vandalism since this was a new user and making silly edits. -- Behnam (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)|decline=Block was converted to indefinite by {{user|Thatcher131}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Banned == | |||
| I have changed your block to an indefinite ban. You continue to advocate for a banned editor despite warnings. (In your advocacy you repeatedly misrepresent the situation and evidence against the banned user despite multiple corrections; it is difficult to believe that this is not deliberate at this point.) You have been taking advice and probably proxy-editing for the banned user . You have been blocked repeatedly for edit warring with no sign that you will moderate your behavior. Should you wish to appeal your ban, you may email the Arbitration committee. Sockpuppet accounts used to evade the ban will be blocked and such actions will weigh against any appeal. ] 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock|I was just asking question to ] so that I understand the situation so that I can then go to ArbCom. How can go to ArbCom on Tajik's behalf if I don't even know why he was banned? Also, about blocking me for edit warring? I was reverting a very obvious vandal which has now been reverted again to my version, and I did not violate the 3RR. If I was asking question to ] he should decide to block me or not, which I know he wouldn't block me just for asking questions. And I'm not proxy editing for anyone. I was at a dispute with that IP (85.......) and it was brought to my attention that he might be a sockpuppet and I reported it and it turned out to be '''Likely'''. What's wrong with that? Banning me so quickly for hardly good enough reasons makes no sense. This ban makes no sense and I'd like another neutral Admin to look at it, you should have atleast consulted another admin before banning or given a warning. I would like Admin 's input since it was him I was asking questions, not you. -- ] (]) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :The {{t1|unblock}} template is not to communicate with a specific admin, it is to request a review of your block. If you'd like to contact Dmcdevit, I'd suggest that you use ]. ]] 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:40, 10 May 2010
Redirect to: