User talk:Hassan Rebell

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is "new user Hassan Rebell mass nominating articles for deletion on Kurds."

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 14 December 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here

I was indef-blocked by JzG with whom I was already engaged in a content dispute 2 weeks ago in the same areas. The indef-block was my first block, and no prior warning on my talkpage. The reason he gave is "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. And clearly not a new user, either." The second point ("new user") is besides the point. In fact I was advised to create a new account because of a username clash, and also had to do so to edit at AFD (which is not possible with IP).

The first point "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". I have created and expanded many articles as IP and my previous account, for example I created the article on Banaz Mamood and expanded articles on honor killings and on female genital mutilation and on human rights of Turkmen and Assyrians and other minorities. Because I was advised to create a new account, and because I wanted to edit at AFD, which is not possible with an IP, I created this account. But I made the mistake of doing too many AFDs at the same time and too quickly after I saw a large set of similar articles of which many seemed non-notable.

I came across a set of similar articles from a single user of which many seemed to be against the notability policy besides lacking reliable sources. Examples include articles on non notable teachers, translators, university assistant teachers, or writers. For example for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cankurd, an article without any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Another one was the unreferenced article on Merziye Feriqi where also another experienced user could not find reliable sources. Another one is Reşo Zîlan, basically a translator with no reliable sources for notability, where another user could also not find any reliable sources. Or Dilshaid Said (a music teacher who according to the article published only one CD that I couldn't even find on Amazon), Other very experienced editors agreed that this article is not notable based on their own searches (I did also include my searches at Amazon and Google in the AFD). Since then someone found out that the spelling of the article was wrong, and with a different spelling there are now more results that were not previously in the article or found. I don't know if the article now meets WP:NMUSIC but it is closer to it. That is fine, and one of the positive outcomes of an AFD process is that articles get improved that were unreferenced for years. One of the results of putting an article to AFD is also article correction and improvement which is good. In this article I reviewed the new evidence that was found. So these articles were lacking any indication why they were notable, and were lacking reliable sources. Because the articles were in an obscure area, some had notability tags but many were not discussed previosly at AFD (but some were, like this one). And that user who wrote these article (not all were non-notable, but many were) has also previously nominated articles at AFD so he must have been aware of the notability policy. (User:Heja Helweda is the same user as User:Vekoler) Unlike others have shown here towards me, I will assume good faith and will not accuse him of anti-Iranism for nominating that article at AFD. (Other users have accused him of Anti-Iranism, but not me, I will assume good faith.)

This is certainly not the first time that a lot of similar articles are nominated at AFD and also not the first dispute at AFD. However, if everybody would be blocked who does this at AFD, there woulnd't be anybody nominating any articles anymore at AFD. Disputes happen at AFD but that doesn't mean that then one should be blocked otherwise nobody will post at AFD anymore. It happend before without calls to get the nominator blocked. This is not the first time that a lot of similar articles are nominated at AFD and also not the first dispute at AFD.

See this dispute on AFD about a much larger number of similar articles that were nominated on AFD. The outcome of that dispute was not an indef ban! The purpose of AfD is to allow members to decide what is notable and what is not notable. Notability is a current requirement for being the subject of a wikipedia article, and it should be -- even though there is not always clear consensus on what constitutes notability, and like any other critierion of inclusion, it can be abused. Thus opposing a set of AFD nominations for whatever reason to make a POINT where non-notability was cited as a reason for nomination is against consensus and therefore violates policy. That is anti-democratic and anti-Wikipedia. They would silence nominators to preserve the rights of authors who create non-notable and unreferenced BLP articles, it seems.

Before doing the AFD of an article that seemed non-notable, I checked Amazon, Google News, Google, Google Scholar, Google Books (places where they should be present) and other sites and presented the search results in the AFD. But for most of these articles, I didn't find anything reliable and I noted in the AFD that I found nothing. What really concerns me is how the article compares to the WP:NMUSIC or WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. It's really just arguing by policy and pointing to the criteria at WP:NMUSIC and other policies that would satisfy everyone on notability. But instead some said they are voting based on WP:POINT or with the "argument" that the nominator is blocked [1]. What would be really important to know is how the articles compare against the notability policy. Unfortunately I have not yet seen any policy-based arguments from them based on this policy. I am still waiting on that.

On most of the articles most if not all users agreed that the articles are not notable. As another user said I should have bundled them all together into a single nomination. So far almost everyone (over 90 percent) at AFD agreed that the articles are indeed not notable based on wikipedia policy.These editors did also their own searches and argued based on policy and (lack of) reliable sources. Of course I only nominated those articles that seemed non-notable. Many at AFD agreed they were not notable. These were experienced editors like SwisterTwister [2] [3] [4] [5][6], ‎Ceosad [7] [8], ‎Brustopher, C.Fred, Velella who did their argumentation based on policy (unlike some others who said they voted because of WP:POINT. There would likely have been even more votes agreeing on the lack of notability if the AFDs were not ended after only a few hours when a notice was put into all the AFDs by an involved editor which discouraged any further delete votes. So many users agreed that the articles lack notability.

The block was wrong and unfair because an indef ban is not appropriate for first ban without even any warning on my talkpage prior to the day of the block for this kind of offence. I agree that I was doing too many AFDs in too short a time. But I believe that an indef first ban without warning is way too harsh. Also the policy specifically excludes "making bold edits" intended to improve Wikipedia, as I did in this instance. Because the action for which I was blocked was therefore not disruption as described in the blocking policy, I request to be unblocked.

I will agree to not discuss anymore in the AFD discussions that I started before the block. Since the dispute concerns the set of articles created by User:Vekoler (or his other account User:Heja Helweda), I will not nominate or renominate any article User:Vekoler/Heja Helweda created for deletion.

I took admin JzG's advice and familiarized myself with expected community behavior. I apologize and I hope I can return to editing at an admin's permission of course. Hassan Rebell (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per this silly attempt to evade your block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 18 December 2015 (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.

@Ohnoitsjamie: can you please explain how I'm related to this? I don't have anything to do with that! I will have to ask for unblock again because of this. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have already told Ohnoitsjamie that I'm not related to this, and asked him for an explanation for his decline reason. I don't have anything to do with it. He has not replied. :I was blocked because nominating too many articles (10 or more) in too short of time at AFD was too controversial. I apologize for this and promised not to do it again. Since the dispute concerns the set of articles created by User:Vekoler I have agreed that I will not nominate or renominate any article he created for deletion. The blocking policy states that blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent future problems. Because I've promised not to cause any more problems, my block no longer serves a purpose allowed by the blocking policy. Therefore, I request to be unblocked. Hassan Rebell (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I was going to discuss this with the blocking admin, but they have a notice on their talk page saying that's not necessary, and you've already waited a month for a reply to this.
I'm honestly not sure if the IP edits above were you or not, so not really considering that.
Consider this a WP:ROPE unblock, a chance to prove that you do in fact understand the issues that led to the block and will not repest them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]