User talk:Afghan American

Blocked indefinitely
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy, and your editing suggests an irremediable conflict of interest. (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cenarium (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The username policy disallows reference to existing organizations. It is possible to change it, but I'd like some explanations on some of your edits. Regarding this edit war, you referred to the IP as Tajik, whom I presume is User:Tajik. This and other elements indicate that you have likely already edited Wikipedia under another account or unregistered, if so you may be in breach of WP:SOCK, so you may wish to disclose previous account(s) in order to let us verify adherence to that policy. Also, your edits and more so edit summaries and comments suggest you have a strong opinion on the subjects of the articles you're editing and in light of your account name and above statement, indicate a conflict of interest. In order to avoid this COI, you would need to refrain from editing articles where it can manifest, or agree to editing restrictions. Several of your comments have also run afoul of civility standards, you would need to change your attitude. Your response to those points would help in processing your unblock request. Thank you Note to admins: I won't be available in the next 24-36 hours, I've no objection to unblocks if appropriately motivated during that time. Cenarium (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The username policy disallows reference to existing organizations? Are you the owner of Wikipedia? User:Tajik is editing from Afghanistan or the European Union according to his/her user page but the IP I communicated with is from somewhere in the United States, perhaps in the state of California. I called him Tajik because every edit he/she makes is adding that word and I figured that he/she is from Tajikistan, and I don't see a point in any of this. Regarding my edits, I think the main idea of Wikipedia is to attract experts to edit its articles. For example, I don't edit any medical related articles because I'm not a doctor and I have very limited knowledge about that field. My editing of these articles is to help improve them, and I'm open to discussing all my edits.--ANP member (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Tajik" is not an organization; it's an ethnicity. Therefore it's allowed. Daniel Case (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I'm just an admin, a user given by the community some additional 'tools' (like blocking). I noted that you have often been rude to your fellow editors, accusing them of various things, in your edit summaries and in this discussion. Please understand that Wikipedia requires editors to assume good faith, that personal attacks are strictly forbidden, and that there are general civility requirements. Also, edit-warring is strongly discouraged and there are specific rules such as the 3RR, please familiarize yourself with that policy, and discuss with users in case of conflicts, without ever attacking them. I'll consider allowing you to create a new account after you propose a new username, provided you agree to strictly follow the policies that I've just mentioned, as well as all content policies, especially neutral point of view, and other policies. Focusing on a particular subject area is allowed provided you don't do so with an agenda, so I'll request that in articles related to Afghanistan you make efforts to maintain a balanced, neutral point of view, civilly discuss with editors, and avoid edit-warring; note that it can have a very positive effect to broaden your editing and it's encouraged. Failing to follow those terms would be grounds to a new block. Cenarium (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a strange block. On the one hand I don't see where in the edits the username is implicated. Merely posting about Afghanistan doesn't, in my book, disqualify this one. I would have to see evidence of edits concerning the ANP. Since the username also suggests one user, it is further acceptable under WP:ROLE. However, ... this account strikes me as possibly having an agenda, and maybe even a sock. So I'm not going to unblock even though, as a username block, it is facially flawed. Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but ANP shouldn't be considered as any organization. While I've answered in general terms above, the main reason of the block is because "ANP member" implies a position of authority, to make an analogy it's as if an account named "FBI member" were editing articles related to US politics. While such a case might not be covered in specific terms in the username policy because of its rarity, I do think that the spirit of the policy strongly supports that usernames implying authority in such a way are forbidden, and coupled with the policies against conflict of interest, which also covers appearance of conflict of interest, makes the case for discretionary blocking, especially when the account edits articles whose subjects relate to jurisdictions where the authority exercises. However that doesn't mean that the user cannot edit those areas, just not with this username to avoid the implication of authority. But the editing itself being problematic, and for the reasons you mention, that would require some more assurances. Cenarium (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cenarium, I propose the name User:Afghan American or User:Afghan mountain lion if you allow me to edit again. Sorry if I was rude to another editor. I'll smoke a joint next time I get frustrated.--ANP member (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you can now create a new account from this account (while logged in this account, create a new one). This account will remain blocked, but the new account will be able to edit. It'll be expected that you have read the mentioned policies and agree to follow the terms above. Cenarium (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Visibly you have enough edits to qualify for renaming, so you can do as indicated below, do not edit other pages until you have been renamed though. Also refrain from editing the article on ANP, as you did in this edit. There's a direct conflict of interest and your edit which included removing the criticism section does not appear to be neutral. You can still suggest modifications on the talk page. Cenarium (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sayyid Jamal-ad-Din Asadabadi. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Please stop reverting and use the talk page. I will be sending the same message to the other editor.  Neil N   talk to me '' 19:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I didn't violate the 3RR and I didn't expect my edits would lead to an edit war with User:Mazdakabedi, who has in fact violated the 3RR 1, 2, 3. Not only that, he is causing disruption by placing false protections, abusing my talk page , attacking me by calling me names . He's asking me to discuss with him something irrelevant to this article and I refuse to do so. All the sources have the subject's name very clear for us and I've cited about 10 credible sources for the Afghanistan birth. Therefore, I have nothing else to discuss about this subject and Wikipedia talk pages are not to be used as forums to write personal nonsense.--Afghan American (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)