Hello, Minahatithan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Hello, I'm RPI2026F1. I noticed that you recently removed content from Slavery in Afghanistan without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPI2026F1, But what I removed was not in the source. Minahatithan (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open a discussion on the article's talk page please. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Slavery in Afghanistan. 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. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LilianaUwU, I don't do editing war, but I correct the article. I have just corrected a small unsourced and biased content. Thank you Minahatithan (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will point this out from the message earlier: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." Use the talk page because you can get blocked otherwise RPI2026F1 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try to improve the article. I don't do editing war. dear friend. Thanks!--Minahatithan (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Minahatithan reported by User:RPI2026F1 (Result: ). Thank you. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wikipedia user, I have the right to edit the article to correct false, unsourced and offensive content. Thank you! Minahatithan (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are exceptions to WP:3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I removed and modified a small content without source, but the user (User:Aciram) started editing war without considering the explanations. You can also see unsourced and biased content in the article. Thank you! Minahatithan (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see a content dispute. You should have made a case for why the content should be removed on the article's talk page, but I don't see where you made any attempt to. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the content was small and unsourced and I thought it didn't need to be discussed. But (User:Aciram) made it a big issue by adding a content without a source. Thanks! That's right, I will discuss on talk page in the future. Sorry for some mistakes.--Minahatithan (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Slavery in Afghanistan) for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Slavery_in_Afghanistan".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RPI2026F1, Thank you! Minahatithan (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your comments at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Minahatithan RPI2026F1 (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in being on Wikipedia, I was busy. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The DRN case is now opened !!! I, the DRN volunteer will take care of the matter to come to a fair consensus as quickly as possible !!!! Craffael.09 (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer these two-and-one-half questions at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard concerning Slavery in Afghanistan:

0. Are you willing to take part in moderated discussion? If so, how frequently will you be able to respond to questions by the moderator?

1. What do you either want changed in the article or want left the same that other editors want changed?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't answer sooner because I was very busy. I apologize for this. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Minahatithan and bias in article Slavery in Afghanistan. Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your disruptive editing, including slow edit warring and editing against consensus, I have indefinitely blocked you from editing Slavery in Afghanistan. You are free to male neutral, well referenced Edit requests at Talk: Slavery in Afghanistan, but you will need to gain consensus there before your request will be implemented. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks and also read the Neutral point of view which is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Hi, I'm not sure why you blocked me from editing (Slavery in Afghanistan). I explained the reason for each edit I made. I also discussed with User:Aciram on the Talk page, but they did not reach a conclusion. And then she/he accuses me and calls me rude for no reason. So what is my sin? Minahatithan (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not discuss "sin" in the context of editing Wikipedia. The reason was stated quite clearly above: disruptive editing, including slow edit warring and editing against consensus. Please feel free to file an unblock request. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant (mistake). It is true that I have made some mistakes and that is not the reason why I will be blocked.

You can see the talk page (Slavery in afghanistan), they have no discussion about the content of the article and the sources of the article, nor do they suggest a source, but instead they call me sarcastic and call me rude and biased. I don't know with what logic they judge a person. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit that article, you need to file an unblock request which will be evaluated by another administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thank you for your guidance, respecrd Admin, if I am unblocked this time, the behavior of User:Aciram also should be checked because they often insult me instead of discussing and make inappropriate and bad judgments. While I have never said a bad word to them. Thanks!--Minahatithan (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thank you! Minahatithan (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked from editing the article Slavery in Afghanistan. I have been blocked due to disruptive editing, slow edit warring, and editing against the consensus that was reported to the Administrators' noticeboard by a user. like the: #Disruptive editing, I don't have any destructive edits at all, I have explained every edit I have made on the talk page and in the edit summary. #Edit warring, the editing war took place when the mutual user was reverting my edits that I had given detailed explanations on the talk page, and I asked several of them to discuss on the talk page, but they did not want to discuss. #Editing against consensus, both users did not reach a consensus in the discussion because instead of logical answers, they accused me that you change the edits out of shame or respect for something, or you are rude. Without talking about the main issue. Another main reason for not reaching a consensus was their refusal to discuss, they said, don't discuss with me anymore, so how can a consensus be reached? And they did the first edit before reaching a consensus, not me. You can review my edits once if you want. I request the respected administrators to unblock me. I will try very hard in the future not to make mistakes and follow Wikipedia's rules.

Decline reason:

This clearly demonstrates you don't understand how consensus works. Yamla (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2022 (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.

@Yamla: The reasons for blocking me are not really fair. If I don't know how consensus works, this shouldn't be the reason for my being blocked because many users of Wikipedia don't know how consensus works. I explained many reasons for my blocking very clearly and frankly, I really shouldn't be blocked. The administrator who blocked me told me to write a request to be unblocked. I request and beg you, dear administrator, to unblock me. I promise you that I will strictly follow the principles and the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks--Minahatithan (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Until you can demonstrate you understand WP:CONSENSUS, you will remain blocked. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I'm sorry, I have to say something again, I know the consensus, I just gave an example in the previous comment that if I don't know the consensus.

I didn't make any big mistake to get blocked indefinitely. If I am blocked, it should be for a few days or weeks, not indefinitely. I request you to unblock me, I want to edit that article. Thank you! Minahatithan (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are free to make a new unblock request and a different admin will review it. --Yamla (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked from editing the article Slavery in Afghanistan. I have been blocked due to disruptive editing, slow edit warring, and editing against the consensus that was reported to the Administrators' noticeboard by a user.

1. Disruptive editing, I don't have any destructive edits, I have explained every edit I have made on the talk page and also in the edit summary.
2. Edit warring, The edit warring took place when the mutual user was reverting my edits that I had given detailed explanations on the talk page, and I asked several of them to discuss on the talk page, but they did not want to discuss.
3. Editing against consensus, The mutual user did not want to discuss with me, they clearly said that I discuss with me, so how can there be a consensus.

I request the respected administrators to unblock me. I want to edit the article and ameliorate its contents. Minahatithan (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Perhaps there is a language barrier here, but this does not demonstrate an understanding of consensus. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2022 (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.

Comment[edit]

There is at least one significant factual error in this unblock request. Minahatithan says that they wanted to discuss, but that the mutual user did not want to discuss. That is incorrect. Aciram requested that a moderator facilitate discussion, and I tried to act as a moderator and to facilitate discussion. I gave up on moderated discussion because Minahatithan did not respond to my questions in a timely manner, and, when they did respond, their responses were too incomplete to be useful. The slow edit warring consists of making the same edits after inadequate discussion. Also, there may be a linguistic problem. Minahatithan says that they "don't have any destructive edits". The reasons for the block were disruptive editing, not destructive editing. If the user does not know the difference, perhaps they are having difficulty in discussing the article in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear and respected @Robert McClenon: You have taken a stand with me, the first time your comments caused me to be blocked, and now you have prevented me from being unblocked with your comment. I asked User:Aciram very clearly several times to discuss but they refused. While I was having a logical discussion with them. I don't know why you don't say anything about them, they started an editorial war with me, they called me rude so many times, etc., but unfortunately you defend them on the contrary and ignore their mistakes many times. Thank you! Minahatithan (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minahatithan

• My personal findings on content side indicate inadvertent partial linguistic abilities and partial borderline WP:SYNTH issues. Borderline WP:SYNTH issues are getting discussed and resolved with the other user by me. For the time being avoidance of direct interaction with the other user Aciram is adviced.
• My content related findings indicated User:Minahatithan and other users need to take note that most scholarly sources on Slavery in Afghanistan seem to be reaching to official chronicles of Faiz Muhammad Kateb who himself was a Hazara and supported by non Hazara regime and citations by other scholars incl. Hazara scholar Niamatullah Ibrahimi; and latest 2022 Hazara historiography researcher Rabia Latif Khan. Makes it authentic. Mousavi also seem to refer to Faiz only so I think all the users (incl. @Minahatithan) study all these resources thoroughly (before raising complaints) and there after join expand related articles further.
• There are some misunderstandings on part of @Minahatithan a) Some of those may be inadvertent linguistic abilities b) Some out of not aquatint with WP procedures and not following where requested like avoiding personalizing even in response. c) Not being well read on scholarly reference literature still getting into argument with experienced users. Until they improve, as of now, there legitimate concerns can be addressed from article talk page, the way I addressed one, at least partially, by moderating while taking there concerns into account. Hence I believe @Minahatithan shall benefit more by improving in this stated areas than insisting immediate access to the article.
• @Minahatithan need to study and understand WP system of inline citation references. If any content sentence is to be contested then first add {{citation needed}} template. They can utilize other WP:INLINE templates and discuss issue on talk page with non personalized manner adhere to WP:Goodfaith. Avoid indulging in deletion of sourced content.
• I wish they understand experienced WP users, usually, do not write their own thoughts in Wikipedia articles but write what they find in credible sources. So blaming other users or misunderstanding them for what is there in the reference sources in accusatory manner may not be helpful idea. If anywhere WP:OR or WP:SYNTH is found that need to brought to notice in civilized non accusatory manner. If still differences persist they need to opt for WP:DR process.
• User:Minahatithan seemed to have had difficulty in understanding wording ".. in the early 20th-century .." not understanding how the word 'early' works in the sentence. When word 'early' is used it does not mean all the years of 20th century but just initial years. On the other side I have requested other user to see if they can write specific year 1921/23 or similar as per ref sources if possible. But again understand WP users have to go as per scholarly ref books.
• As earlier said rather than focusing on single article if they study scholarly literature and takes note of slavery in Central Asia, South Asia and Iran may help them understanding historic medieval slavery trade connections. And mean while that helps them in understanding WP workings
• I hope this report helps @Minahatithan in their constructive participation in WP in times to come. Bookku (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bookku: Yes, it is true in the early years, but knowing how many years the early years cover or up to which years is still misleading and confusing. In any case, I will not dwell on this issue too much, but it must be said that after the massacre of the Hazaras, Abdul Rahman Khan captured many Hazaras mostly as war captives and sold them as slaves in the cities of Kabul and Kandahar in 1892s. But the end of this process was done after the death of Abdul Rahman by his son Habibullah Khan when he came to power, he banned this process.(only buying and selling)

Finally in 1923, Amanullah Khan banned slavery in Afghanistan, which did not belong to a particular ethnic group, to be completely banned, its buying, selling, keeping, and other practices.

Therefore, we conclude that the selling and buying of the slaves was banned and did not exist in the early 20th century, but the possession and keeping of slaves continued, which was finally banned completely by Amanullah Khan in 1923.

The sentence about selling and buying slaves, which was added by User:Aciram, is incorrect and should be removed because it is not useful for the article and invalidates the article.

This information, which I quoted from a Persian encyclopedia, is based on numerous and reliable sources. Thank you for discussing to resolve the dispute in editing.

• "هزاره" (in Persian). Retrieved 2022-11-16.

Minahatithan (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minahatithan

What you have said is already taken note of. Repeating same rhetoric again and again will reduce your own energy and not necessarily help your cause.

The term 'early years' seem to have been referred from Page 45 of Revolution Unending: Afghanistan, 1979 to the Present  Gilles Dorronsoro. And this book seem to refer to Louis Dupree The political use of religion Afghanistan. Louis Dupree is well recognized archeologist and scholar on Afghanistan. A properly sourced material can not be undone just because some one believes other wise. Wikipedia has systems you need to study more with patience. I have already urged other users to see how best we can help you. But searching every scholarly book is time consuming thing one need to have lot of patience.

The way you can not use Wikipedia as reference in other places same way the Persian source Wiki you cite too can not be used as source in Wikipedia since that is not peer reviewed by scholars etc all this you will learn slowly.

• What you can do is share their reference list at article talk for verification and article improvement. I believe at least in part their article too is dependent on similar sources like Mousavi and all. You go to Wikipedia exchange resource, google scholar read one by one scholarly books and then may be write your own paragraphs first in your sandbox check it from experienced users.

Have you tried my rest of suggestions too? If not read my earlier posting again it contains some helpful suggestions which may help you while moving around on Wikipedia. Take interest in other slavery related articles like slavery in neighboring countries read scholarly book about them also and suggest improvement to WP article about them. That will give you more exposure and help you understand how to approach Wikipedia better and without stress.

Happy reading and editing cheers Bookku (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minahatithan Due to your insistence I took extra effort to reach out to Wikipedia Resource Exchange. Like me You can read Mousavi S.A. 'The Hazaras of Afghanistan @ https://archive.org/details/hazarasofafghani0000mous @ page 77 I found sentence ".. Until 1919 some Hazaras were still kept as slaves by the Pashtuns; although Shah Amanullah banned slavery in Afghanistan during his reign, the tradition carried on unofficially for may more years. .."

I hope this helps clear some of your doubts. Bookku (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Bookku: But I said about their buying and selling in the markets of Kabul in the early 20th century that there was no such buying and selling, but they were kept as slaves that was from the 1893 war. It should be very clear that they were bought and sold as slaves during the reign of Abdul Rahman Khan since 1893 and Abdul Rahman Khan died in 1901 in the 19th century. Also, there are no sources about buying and selling them as slaves in the early 20th century. As Habibullah also prohibited buying and selling them as slaves.

That sentence in the article written about the buying and selling of Hazaras in the markets of Kabul as late as in the early 20th-century should be deleted it is unlikely to be true. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorronsoro, Gilles. 'Revolution Unending: Afghanistan, 1979 to the Present'. : Page 45 ".. At the end of 19th century.. . The declaration of jihad by the Amir of Kabul and that of Shi'ite ulema in response, was to justify worst atrocities, and in particular the enslavement of a segment of the Hazara population; Hazaras were sold in the markets of the capital as late as the first years of 20th century. ..".

Above is an academic reference. Tell me what to do. Bookku (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sale of slaves was during the reign of Abd al-Rahman in 1893, but there was no such thing in the early 20th century, when many slaves were kept.

Abdul Rahman, who was the cause of this phenomenon, did not live in the 20th century, he died in 1901. Thanks--Minahatithan (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorronsoro, Gilles. 'Revolution Unending: Afghanistan, 1979 to the Present'. : Page 45 ".. At the end of 19th century.. . The declaration of jihad by the Amir of Kabul and that of Shi'ite ulema in response, was to justify worst atrocities, and in particular the enslavement of a segment of the Hazara population; Hazaras were sold in the markets of the capital as late as the first years of 20th century. ..".

Above is an academic reference. Tell me what to do. Bookku (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: It is better now. thank you! Minahatithan (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]