Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia/Requests/Afghanwrites

Original filing edit

Afghanwrites voted and altered it to قاري محمد يونس edit

Afghanwrites has voted twice, One on his name and another he altered to قاري محمد يونس. (see on this page)
Original subject: Afghanwrites voted and altered it to قاري محمد يونس
(This was unsigned, but was added 07:01, 1 May 2015 by UsmanKhan

User notified edit

@Afghanwrites:. Your response here is requested. What happened? --Abd (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also notified on User talk:Afghanwrites. (permanent link). --Abd (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User response edit

Dear members of Stewards !

Since you have blocked the beurocrat and admins of the pashtowikipedia and has given nonelimited rights to عثمان منصور انصاري and عثمان شاه from urdu wikipedians then we saw different rivalries in the wikipedia there. I just tried to make them understand that the context of the pashto wikipedia should be in Pashto version not Urdu or Panjaby , by the way they make from it a bigg issue . I have been blocked two times by the stewards without any warning and explaination just because the two persons out of 1000 members of Pashto wikipedia voted for my blocking or may have been involved in complains. I am a regular guy writing regularly besides my daily working affairs. Regarding the nomination of قاري مخمد يونس , I wrote on behalf of him because I want him to come again and participate in pashto wiki. the second reason was thet عثمان منصور انصاري or anyone from his team who is not active in Pashto wikipedia at all , has written the name (jalili) which never existed other than registration of the name. I thought aand Iam still in doubt that this is the work of عثمان منصور انصاري and a pakistani guy عثمان شاه . but despite putting the name of قاري محمد يونس I wrote to him that I did this if you dont agree then please remove the name or tell me to remove it, it was again because of attracting his intention towards the Pashto Wikipedia . We need active people to come again and then when the active registrated people expanded the limit of 10 or 15 then we can make referendom . now the three or four members registered are from urdu wikipedia they just appear when there are nomination other than that they do not participate in any type literary activities. I therefore requist the stewards board members to not begin with the nomination of adminship yet let the people increase their participation and then you can begin with it. now its mostly Urdu speakers who just participate in the fever of عثمان منصور انصاري and عثمان شاه so please keep an eye on their activities . I am still working for the developement of the pashto wikipedia and am not against anyone except the vandalism and mistreatment of two pakistanis عثمان شاه and عثمان منصور انصاري . one thing else which is important that the عثمان شا is hiding its (Talking) button and then deleting other's comments regarding the article , its because he is afraid of the civil critics on the wrong dictation and alphabets used by him and he just intend to repeat that because of his grudges kept for me. I hope you make him understand of that.

kind regards --Afghanwrites (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on pswiki edit

Comments edit

Apparent double-voting confirmed.[1][2] Not socking. However, the name used in the second signature is of another user, with a total of 3 edits to pswiki, 2 not deleted. --Abd (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Afghanwrites voted twice on my polling page. afghanwrites once again went out of control. he voted twice from same computer, (maybe same ip address and computer). plz notice him in this page: (bureaucracy voting page of Usman Mansoor) --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Normal procedure here would be to remove the extra vote, or, if there has been a response to it (as there has been), to strike it (use strikeout) with a civil, neutral note in smalltext. Any user can do this. This was an obvious error. "Same computer" is a common difficulty, it seems, many pswiki users are sharing a computer with someone else. Afghanwrites should be asked what happened. I could make up explanations, I won't.

Complaining about the vote in a 'crat voting process distracts from the process, making Afghanwrites the subject, not the candidate. --Abd (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanwrites. Thank you for responding and explaining what you did.

It was a major error. You cast what is called a "proxy" vote, if you had been authorized. Without being authorized, specifically, it's just another opinion, but pretending to be the expression of Qaari Muhammad Yunus (قاري محمد يونس). Proxy voting is generally not allowed, and the reason is obvious: verifying the votes as being votes of the represented user would be a difficult and complicated burden. Your idea of bringing in users who might have given up in the past is a good one. However, this is not the way to do it.

Afghanwrites, I recommended on your user page that you strike the vote. You did not do that. It was done for you.

Reviewing the editing on ps.wiki, it's clear that you have little concept of how to behave on a wiki. You added a comment to a user talk archive, highly inflammatory.[3]. A translation of this was placed on the bureaucrat page. I cannot read Pashto, but I can read Arabic somewhat, and one word I can verify, "munafiq," English "hypocrite," which is highly insulting.

You revert warred with the user in his own user talk archive. (Khangul may be doing the same, which is very odd for someone supposedly experienced.)

Afghanwrites, I strongly suggest you stop. You are already likely to be blocked for what you have done. If you apologize, you might recover. You are not helping Khangul by behaving in this way. You are harming him. Fiy aymanullah. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a page to get steward attention. Rather, these pages are places to study issues and complaints and seek agreement. Eventually, something might be taken to stewards from here. The steward request pages are not good for discussion. However, you may make steward requests directly at Steward requests/Miscellaneous. I do not recommend it, Afghanwrites, you are too likely to request yourself right into a block. --Abd (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About this comment of yours:

one thing else which is important that the عثمان شا is hiding its (Talking) button and then deleting other's comments regarding the article , its because he is afraid of the civil critics on the wrong dictation and alphabets used by him and he just intend to repeat that because of his grudges kept for me. I hope you make him understand of that.

Users have a signature, which they may look as they choose. What is essential is that it point to the user. Normally, they do have a talk page link, but not always. If they don't, the talk page is still in the usual place, it is the discussion page for the user page. So it may take an extra click, that's all.

You edit warred with him over "deleting other's comments" Most wikis allow all users to blank comments from their talk page. They are not actually deleted, because they are in history. Some users keep talk page archives, which is the best practice, some just delete old comments, and new ones when they don't want them sitting there.

However, you were edit warring with him over his archive. Comments had been added to the archive instead of to his talk page. That was improper, so he removed them.

Very much, Afghanwrites, if you are going to work on ps.wikipedia, you need a mentor, a teacher, someone you trust who can help you understand what is happening, because you don't understand, and when you don't understand, you are assuming the worst.

Now, for me to review all of what was actually happening on that page, and to be sure about it, I would need to compare the page with the user talk page, and it's very difficult for me to work on that wiki, because I can't read the language. However, I can see enough to be reasonably sure of what I'm telling you. You wrote, in an edit to his user talk archive:

"You have deleted my previous comments in your talking page which is against the law of wikipedia."

You do not know the "law of wikipedia." Some of the wikis (very few) don't allow blanking of comments, but only archiving. None would allow new comments in an archive, with few exceptions. All would allow a user to revert additions to his talk page archive.

By believing that you are right, and acting uncivilly and without respect, you are creating cause to be blocked. That does not mean that you are wrong about everything, but that you don't know what you are doing, and aren't allowing those who do know to help you. --Abd (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response of Usman Mansur Ansari edit

off-topic response to comment of Afghanwrites

Original header: its not my habit to use others account for proxy vote!?

afghanwrites claim that i used someone els userman (jalili) for a proxy vote in ps wiki, but i didnt. it was not (jalili), but jalaly. mr Afghanwrites: plz do not mislead the topic. here is the proof that we have Zahid Jalaly who cast his vote on 12th of April. 2015.

[Image removed that showed this diff --Abd (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC) ].[reply]

--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uthman Mansur Ansari, I've seen the use of images, screenshots, from some Afghan users, which disrupt a page, where a diff is normally used (and is a lot easier!). I have replaced the image above with the diff that the image shows. The topic here is not you, but Afghanwrites, and what he wrote above about "jalili" was incoherent. There is no need for you to defend yourself. However, you showed the wrong diff. This is the vote of Zahidjalaly, who did not use an ordinary signature, but just wrote "jalaly" which confused Afghanwrites, who doesn't know how to look at history and figure out who actually made a comment; he has made many other mistakes like this. Definitely, he needs help.

I have collapsed this because you are not the topic of this subpage; rather Afghanwrites and the improper proxy vote are. While Afghanwrites mentioned you, it simply showed his confusion, compounded by a lack of user support on ps.wiki that would ordinarily fix a confusing signature like that of Zahidjalaly. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abd@ thanks for explanation, but look to afghanwrite's (khangul's) illogical argument: I thought aand Iam still in doubt that this is the work of عثمان منصور انصاري and a pakistani guy عثمان شاه. i noticed him several time that he personally attacked me in meta and ps wiki. you wrote: who doesn't know how to look at history and figure out who actually made a comment;. but i think he (khangul+afghanwrites) is clear to all that he has years of experience in ps, meta wiki contributions, so how could he pretend that he does not know basic knowledge of wiki Technics!? anyhow, may allah guide him and us to the right path. Ameen--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Afghanwrites is ignorant or careless, is in a condition of not trusting, so is in "doubt," by which he probably means he "suspects" what he says. So what? If you are not that user, and if you are not "related" (i.e., using the same internet access, or, even more related, the same computer), nothing will come of it. I have seen users with years of experience who knew very little. I've only looked at a little of Afghanwrites' recent editing. It shows lack of understanding of regular wiki process.

He's not the only one, by the way. For example, most wikis allow a user to blank the comments of others on their own talk page. If one needs to look at the talk page, to see, for example, if a user has been warned (before blocking), one would always look at page history and not trust archives.

I have seen that some wikis prohibit blanking talk page comments. It's unusual, and, my opinion, a bad idea. Blanking a comments shows that the user saw it. Sometimes it is uncivil, especially if the edit summary is uncivil. But that is a separate matter.

It is not a general requirement that users archive their talk page. So how about helping him? Either archive his old stuff (with his permission, only) or re-blank what he blanked that was reverted. See [4]. Show some support where and when you can.

I would also suggest warning the user who edit warred with him. That insistent edit warring would likely infuriate Afghanwrites. It is completely unnecessary provocation.

Since I'm looking at it and have it handy, I will revert. Please watch that page. I am not going to edit war on ps.wiki, period. I'm not going to warn the user. If my edit is improper, I can be warned, but I have no plan of making a habit of this. Afghanwrites has been a difficult user, but the problem gets worse if the user is provoked. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]