User talk:Shishaz

Hello Shishaz and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Uzbeks, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Jaghatu District (Ghazni). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andar District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital City. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hazaras: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia,

Could you please explain your edits, I couldn't understand the rationale since you don't leave edit summaries. Theofunny (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, you cannot remove source and verifiable content from reliable sources even if you disagree with it as you did here Ethnic groups in Afghanistan: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. Please keep this in mind for further edits and revert if you have made the same mistakes elsewhere.Theofunny (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You can add other better estimates and change the wording of the previous one for neutrality but don't remove. Theofunny (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Ahmada, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Shishaz! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Hazaras several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Hazaras, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hazaras. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I am surprised that the edits made by User:KoizumiBS have not been reverted, even though they have removed many sourced information and changed some parts of the article against the references, without providing any explanation for these deletions and changes. I reverted their edits because I believe they clearly deserved to be reverted. It is necessary for them to use the talk page before making such changes to the article. Shishaz (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The topic is "Possible slow-moving revert war at CTOP article Hazaras". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Iampharzad per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Izno (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Esteemed Administrator Izno, I hope this message finds you well.

With the utmost respect, I would like to kindly request clarification regarding the block placed on my account due to an allegation of sockpuppetry. I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of the user Iampharzad, whom I do not know and with whom I have absolutely no connection. I am not a sockpuppet truly, I am not, and the account of Iampharzad, which has been blocked, does not belong to me in any way.

I respectfully wish to emphasize that I have never engaged in deceptive behavior or violated community guidelines. If there is any specific reason or evidence behind this claim, I would sincerely appreciate it if you could share it with me, and I would be happy to respond and clarify that I am not Iampharzad’s sockpuppet.

I genuinely believe that this block may be the result of a misunderstanding about me, and I am simply seeking the opportunity to prove my identity. Shishaz (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Esteemed Administrator @Izno: With the utmost respect, I kindly ask you to take a careful and thorough look at my contributions and the circumstances of my block.I am simply telling the truth: I am not a Sockpuppet of Iampharzad, nor do I have any connection to that account or to any other blocked accounts.

I respectfully question the basis on which I was blocked, as the claim appears to have no real connection to my actions. My contributions were made in good faith, with the sole purpose of improving articles. These contributions are not tied in any way to the accusations made by the user HistoryofIran, whose claims I believe are mistaken and unjustified.

Dear administrator, I sincerely request that my account be unblocked so that I may have the chance to engage in discussions and defend myself in a fair and open manner. If I did not respond more seriously in the past, it was only because I never imagined such an unfounded accusation would lead to a block, as I genuinely am not a Sockpuppet and have never operated any secondary accounts.

@HistoryofIran: I kindly ask you to have a friendly and fair conversation with me here, so I can explain and prove that I am not a sockpuppet of Iampharzad or anyone else, as you have claimed. It is not fair for me to be blocked without proper justification. I would appreciate the chance to present my explanations and clarify the truth. Previously, due to ignoring your accusations, I did not engage in a detailed discussion, which unfortunately led to my block. Are you willing to explain the reason why you believe I should be labeled as a Sockpuppet? Shishaz (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: Once again, I sincerely ask you with deep apologies to please respond to me just once. Kindly do not misunderstand me, as my intentions are genuinely good. I truly wish to share with you the reason behind my block. Shishaz (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Unblock Request I respectfully ask that you please review my case thoroughly so that the facts may be brought to light. I am fully willing to answer any questions necessary to clarify this issue and to demonstrate that I have not been involved in any kind of sockpuppetry or deceptive behavior. It is deeply upsetting to be blocked based on an allegation that has no factual basis in my case, and this has caused me significant emotional distress. With respect, I kindly ask that you examine all of my contributions and take a careful look at the claims made in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iampharzad. I have no connection whatsoever to those accounts. If needed, I am fully willing to undergo any additional verification or investigation necessary to prove my independence. I understand and respect the important responsibilities administrators carry, including enforcing blocks. However, in this situation, I believe the block has been applied in error. At this point, I'm not sure how I can prove more and more to you now that I'm acting in good faith and that I am not associated with any sockpuppet, but this message reflects my honest and final effort to clarify the situation. I trust in your ability to fairly evaluate the matter and hope you will take the time to review the evidence and my contributions carefully. I am completely willing to cooperate in any way needed to help resolve this issue. Thank you again for your time, understanding, and fairness.

@Izno: @Yamla: @Materialscientist: With all due respect, I would like to request that this matter be addressed as soon as possible. This situation has caused me serious distress and anxiety. This blocking seems truly unfair, as I was accused of being a sockpuppet without a proper opportunity to explain that I am not a sockpuppet, and this accusation does not reflect the truth. The claims made by @HistoryofIran: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, are completely false and misleading about me. I am fully willing to defend myself and clarify. I am happy to answer any questions or concerns to resolve this matter fairly.

Sincerely. Shishaz (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is about the longest request I have ever seen that still boils down to "I'm not a sock" which every sock puppet says, since that is the whole point. If you are not a sock, then please specifically address the behavioral information in the SPI. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2025 (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.

Why is no one reviewing my request? Shishaz (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Admins are not available 24/7 to review requests instantly. Patience is required. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Sincere thanks to you for your guidance and support. Shishaz (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you will accompany me in resolving this matter honestly. According to your advice, I must specifically review the behavioral evidence presented in the SPI, and I will certainly do so.

HistoryofIran has made some false and incorrect accusations against me, claiming that I am a sockpuppet, which led to my being blocked, even though I am not and this is extremely painful and unfair for me. This must be clarified.

These are the full claims made by HistoryofIran against me, which I am presenting here in order to clarify the matter as soon as possible.

This:

"I doubt a CU check will do anything (though it would be appriecated to check regardless just to safe, in case of another sleeper account lying around). I'm aiming for the behavioural analysis. And yes, with all respect, I still consider Bravehm and all the others (except Mahmud1401, the only one who hasn't been blocked) as socks of Iampharzad. I have used countless of hours on them combined, they all have the exact same (disruptive) behaviour, English skills and area of focus.

1. Shishaz created their account on 1 June 2024, first started editing on 22 July 2024, shortly after Bravehm was blocked on 7 July 2024. The typical behaviour of a sleeper account.
2. Restored the incredibly specific edit of sock (the first edited text of both diffs)
3. Moved an incredibly obscure article to the exact same name as sock . They not only did it once, but twice and thrice
4. Both claim "no valid/accurate demography" has been done yet in Afghanistan as a justification to remove info
5. Incredibly similiar EIA
6. I asked Shishaz thrice why they restored number 2 edit of the sock, which they avoided adressing, no doubt due to having no way to defend against that.
7. At Uruzgan Province, both Shishaz and Iampharzad coincidentally remove unsourced with the edit summary stating that.
8. Shishaz coincidentally edits the very obscure Daizangi article, which was created by Iampharzad , and edited by two of the latters socks
9. A common trend amongst Iampharzad and co. is that they have severe WP:CIR issues. Shishaz is no different. Heck, this is their odd way of deflecting after being caught in using AI to write , because their own English skills are not remotely close to that (it's close to Iampharzad's and co.). HistoryofIran (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

   That made no sense, you obviously know what is referred to. You shifted around the links of the ethnicities randomly in the same sentence as Iampharzad and co. I don't recall "claiming" anything to you, but I certainly did to Iampharzad and co. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Would appreciate if an admin could look into this, this is obviously a sock of Iampharzad. They can't even answer a simple question on why they did the exact random but specific edit as Iampharzad, despite four attempts. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)"

One of the false and baseless claims made against me here is that I restored an edit made by a blocked user whom they believe is connected to me, which is not true as they allege. That edit was specifically made by me of my own accord. I have previously provided a brief explanation that I made that edit to improve the article, and I have clearly stated that I am not the owner of that blocked account.

@331dot: If it is not too much trouble, I kindly request your attention to this matter and eagerly await your response.--Shishaz (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add beyond what has been said. Even if you are a completely different person that the account that made the edit that you reinstated or duplicated, that would only make this meat puppetry. When a new user whose account was created not long after a blocked account makes an edit that a blocked user made, we must treat that as if they were made by the same person, because we don't know who is sitting at the computer/holding the device. You may make a new request for someone else to review, my word is not the last one. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. In presented claims made against me I want to understand why my account has been blocked based on claims that is not really true about me and it is completely unfair. These claims were made by HistoryofIran as a result of a conflict during an edit war. They accused me of being a sockpuppet and alleged that I had restored an edit made by a blocked user.

Firstly, as I have mentioned multiple times, that edit was intended solely to improve the article. Secondly, it was not even truly a restoration. see Hazaras: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia and Hazaras: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia If you review the edit made by the blocked user, you will see. the two edits are different, so If anyone considers that edit to be a restoration, they are free to hold that view.

I was blocked without doing anything and my user account should be unblocked, and those blocked User accounts don't belong to me.

With gratitude to the esteemed administrators and users who are engaging with me to help resolve this issue, so that I may return to contributing to Wikipedia once again. Dear friends, thank you.--Shishaz (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: With due respect and kind regards,

If it’s not too much trouble, I kindly ask you to respond at least once. Why have I been blocked for sockpuppetry when I am not a sockpuppet and why I have been blocked over an accusation to which I have never been connected. I am waiting for your kind response and truly wish for this matter to be resolved definitively. I have already provided many explanations in the past, yet I do not know why no one seems to take them seriously. Shishaz (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Greetings to all the kind members of this community. I have been blocked based on an unfounded reason, an allegation that I am a sockpuppet. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad - Wikipedia. This block was applied on the assumption that I am connected to previously blocked accounts, none of which belong to me. I kindly ask that this matter be investigated and clarified, as the basis for the block is not valid. One of the false and baseless accusations made against me is that I restored an edit originally made by a blocked user who is suspected to be connected to me, which is not true about me. That particular edit was made by me independently and based on my own judgment. I have already provided a brief explanation stating that I made the edit to improve the article, and I clearly declared that I have no relation to that blocked account. As I have mentioned multiple times, that edit was intended solely to improve the article. Secondly, it was not even truly a restoration. See Hazaras: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia and Hazaras: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. Please also review the other mistaken claims that have been made about me regarding alleged sockpuppetry. These claims have been wrongly attributed to me and do not reflect the truth. I have no connection whatsoever to those accounts or actions, and now I am ready to have any discussion with you about this issue until the matter is resolved. I sincerely request that my account be unblocked, as I am completely blameless here. I have never been at fault, nor will I ever be. It is truly painful for me to have been blocked despite not being a sockpuppet. I humbly ask one of the considerate administrators to kindly look into this matter. To my dearest and kindest friends, I have been trying for several days to resolve the issue of my unjustified block. I sincerely request that my account be unblocked, as I am completely blameless here. I have never been at fault, nor will I ever be. It is truly painful for me to have been blocked despite not being a sockpuppet. I humbly ask the administrators to kindly look into this matter. I respectfully request that this situation be reviewed carefully, and I hope to return and contribute positively to the project. With respect and appreciation--Shishaz (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2025 (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.

I kindly request one of the administrators to give attention to my request.--Shishaz (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Shishaz, you might have better luck if you actually addressed all the behavioral evidence. You are blocked and already had one unblock request denied by administrators "kindly looking into the matter" and administrators "giving attention to your request." All of HistoryofIran's links point to what they claim to link to, so if their interpretation of the evidence is mistaken, you're going to have to actively make the case and address these points one by one. Only addressing one point and simply denying isn't going to change anyone's mind. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shishaz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ahmada, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shishaz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ahmada".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)