Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hassan Rebell: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:45, 15 December 2015 editHassan Rebell (talk | contribs)265 edits Working draft (please do not edit section)← Previous edit Revision as of 01:52, 15 December 2015 edit undoShawn à Montréal (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers158,726 edits Working draft (please do not edit section): reNext edit →
Line 100: Line 100:


:Jzg is not an uninvolved admin and therefore he should not have blocked me Jzg was involved in disputes with me previosuly as he had with many other users ( ] ] ]] ] ] for example). As an involved admin, he should not block me, certainly not without warning. :Jzg is not an uninvolved admin and therefore he should not have blocked me Jzg was involved in disputes with me previosuly as he had with many other users ( ] ] ]] ] ] for example). As an involved admin, he should not block me, certainly not without warning.
::I don't think it's up to you to propose a six-month stay of execution and then start harassing Vekoler again. I for one would suggest a ] on editing ''any'' Kurdish articles, but then it seems the only reason you're here in the first place is to delete Kurdish culture content or create content on Kurdish atrocities, so I'm not sure what else you'd find to do? ] (]) 01:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:52, 15 December 2015


Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. 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)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion on WP:ANI in which you have been mentioned. This is left as a courtesy notification. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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."

Stop icon
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)

Jzg is an involved admin

Jzg had a conflict of interest with me already previously. He was in past conflicts and disputes taking side against me, for example he nominated for deletion an article I created. As an involved admin, he should not block me, certainly not without warning.

Since this account has no deleted contributions and has created no articles in main space, you have just admitted to sockpuppetry. Which entirely supports my judgment that you are not a brand new user. In other news, an admin does not have a COI playing whack-a-mole. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No I have not. Please read the Sockpuppet policy. My previous account was disabled because of username clash and I was advised to create a new one. Using an IP is also not against policy.
Look , your block is agaist the WP:INVOLVED policy. Please undo it. (Jzg has previously nominated one of my articles for deletion, has called me a nationalist and was involved in disputes to another user to open a claim at ANI against me. Jzg had a conflict of interest with me already previously. He was in past conflicts and disputes involving me, for example he nominated for deletion an article I created. As an involved admin, he should not block me, certainly not without warning.)--Hassan Rebell (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "pinging" the admin is a good idea. You've made personal attacks against him and this could be seen as harassment -- and you could be blocked from editing your own userpage, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The facts:
  • I did not know at the time of your block what your previous account might have been. I still do not know for certain, and I have no way of knowing.
  • Anons cannot create articles so the only way I could have nominated a previous article of yours for deletion is if you had a previous registered account. In making the claim you did, you admitted abuse of multiple accounts.
  • Playing whack-a-mole does not violate WP:INVOLVED, but I was not aware of any previous interaction with you anyway, so it's moot.
  • Your comments above only make it worse.
At this point you are in a hole and digging vigorously. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Our last encounters were only 2 weeks ago, and in the same areas, so I assumed that would remember them. Isn't that a fair assumption? I was previously Lrednuas, and you nominated one of my articles for deletion. There was no abuse, because I was advised to open a new account because of username. All this happened only 2 weeks ago. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Even as the guy who opened the latest SPI, I think the whole "sockpuppetry" thing may be a red herring. He's used two user accounts and a raft of IPs. He didn't change his username from Lrednuas properly, despite being given instructions on how to do so. But I never saw him clearly trying to pretend he was not the same person. The problem is the disruptive editing, his WP:Battleground mentality against Kurdish culture, and we can see a continuation of same should he be unblocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

As one of at least two objecting editors (@Wikimandia:) I'd be wary about the claim that "over 90 percent at AFD agreed they were not notable." As far as I know, these Afds are still ongoing and he has no way to responsibly make that claim. He's also been rather clear above that, if unblocked, he intends to resume mass nominating all Kurdish-related articles created by @Vekoler: -- though there has never been any community consensus to do so, far as I know, and I wonder why that isn't harassment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

90 percent is roughly true for the current status. Wikimandia has voted keep on one of the articles, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dilshad Said, but unfortunately Wikimandia was not arguing based on wikipedia policy, whereas I and other voters (including in some cases you) were arguing based on available reliable sources and the notability policy. Wikimandia is voting keep on Dilshad Said, a music teacher with no published CDs on Amazon and no reliable sources in the article or on GNews.
Again you are not assuming good faith as previously. I will not nominate all articles created by Vekoler, but the fact is that he created a mass of non-notable articles, and someone had to sift through them to filter out the non-notable ones. That is why there is an AFD process on wikipedia, isn't it? Why should one set of non-notable articles be excluded from AFD? --Hassan Rebell (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty remarkable for a non-notable music teacher to conduct the Czech National Symphony Orchestra performing his own compositions.. He must be one hell of a music teacher. Мандичка 😜 22:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
BTW, to my surprise I find myself advocating on his behalf in one respect: he's admitted in the past that he had edited as an IP. In fact, he stated here that User:81.62.246.169 is himself. That said, I do not believe he is here to build an encyclopedia -- and I for one don't see the "sifting" that he speaks of -- but I don't believe he's attempted to conceal anything about his IP editing past. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course I didn't nominate all the articles this SPA created at AFD. Some of them were notable enough. But many were just not notable and many other experienced editors have agreed on that point. I have now also come to the conclusion that one of the articles I nominated is notable despite that I couldn't find anything about him on GBooks or Amazon - after references were included in the article that were missing previously.
I have also expanded and created many articles previously like the article on Banaz Mahmood or the Kurdish women article, to name but a few. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Banaz Mahmod was a Kurdish woman killed by her family and it would seem to me to be entirely consistent with an anti-Kurdish bias that you might create this article while working, as a IP and with this account, to systematically purge Misplaced Pages of bio articles on Kurdish artists, notable or not. I really do support the block. He's sort of been throwing everything at the wall to see what'll stick at Afds, for example, misunderstanding or misrepresenting WP:AUTHOR so as to claim that unless authors meet everyone of the additional criteria, we're to delete articles. He's tried mass PRODDING as an IP -- now he's onto mass Afds. He's got a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. It really is a disruptive waste of time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. At least I expanded wikipedia on topics on Kurdish women, whereas Vekoler, who you support, deleted all this information about crimes against women repeatedly. I could also on good evidence say that Jzg is anti-Turkish (for example, he called a list article of victims of terrorism in Turkey "unacceptable" and "a truly horrible article"), or that User:Vekoler, whose non-notable articles are discussed, is an ultra nationalist who is anti-Yazidi, anti-Assyrian, anti-urkish, anti-women and anti-Persian / anti-Iranian.--Hassan Rebell (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hassan Rebell, I advise you to read Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks. An admin will not unblock you with your current appeal. Liz 21:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a question of how you interpret notability. By going with the article version at that time, and the relevant policy, this persons notability is questionable. He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. From that article, I could only see that one of his papers is cited in passing in a book and that he has a managerial or research role at a company (Gazprom Neft??) and that he has published a few papers or books of questionable notability. Maybe he is notable, but from the article it was not obvious at all. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of WP:BEFORE before. I'm going to read the guideline.--Hassan Rebell (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I've pointed out more than one time at Afds how your cookie cutter nominations did not reflect any effort on your part to see whether Kurdish artists were actually notable or not. You didn't seem to care. You're going to read BEFORE now that you're blocked? Wonderful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The article state is irrelevant - you are REQUIRED to search for sources and check for native language sources as well. Nadirov is an engineer from Kazakhstan, so obviously the first place to start would be with Kazakh- and Russian-language sources. Nadirov is not an academic so of course he doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. He doesn't meet notability guidelines for figure skaters either. He meets GNG by a mile. Look at the sources. And why are you nominating AfDs if you're not even aware of WP:BEFORE? It's not hidden. Мандичка 😜 23:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I did present the AFDs with search results from Amazon and various Google sources, and I only nominated articles that seemed non notable, most did not include reliable sources. There was a mass of articles that were all similar and created by the same user. That is the reason that I went about it too fast. But it happens all the time at AFD that there are many similar or disputed nominations without calls to get the nominator blocked. I assumed Academic because he is in research roles and has published some research. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Misplaced Pages community.

Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please spare dragging me into disputes when I am not able to reply there. That user was blocked because of a username clash and was told to create a new account ergo cannot be a sockpuppet!!! This investigation is as frivolous as the the harassment you did yesterday. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
"That user." You mean you? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
As long as I am not able to reply there it is pointless to discuss further. I have also no obligation to disclose my previous account or any IP account, I just pointed out that this is in any case not a Sockpuppet case.
Your SPI is not done in good faith because you are aware that this is not a sockpuppet case. This investigation is as frivolous as the the harassment you did yesterday when you were told by admins to stop. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to help you. You never used {{unblock-un|user=your new username here|reason=your reason here}} as instructed. So you're admitting this was your previous account -- I don't recall you stating that before. I'll state that at SPI. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This is in reply to a comment at SPI where i cannot edit: "I could also on good evidence say that Jzg is anti-Turkish (for example, he called a list article of victims of terrorism in Turkey "unacceptable" and "a truly horrible article"), or that User:Vekoler, whose non-notable articles are discussed, is an ultra nationalist who is anti-Yazidi, anti-Assyrian, anti-urkish, anti-women and anti-Persian / anti-Iranian.--Hassan Rebell (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
All of those appear to involve arguments from 2006 and 2007. There's no evidence of a long-term problem. Vekoler has never been reported at ANI and has never been blocked. But it does add credence to the accusation that you're harassing him if you're reading his talk archives from almost 10 years ago. Мандичка 😜 22:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
What does it matter if he was reported at ANI and how do you even know if he was or not? I don't wish to be in any dispute with Vekoler I only stumbled on a set of non-notable articles which happen to be created by a single editor. But I have been harassed, and have been the victim of not assuming good faith here on wikipedia. The vast majority at AFD agreed with my assessment of the notability criteria.--Hassan Rebell (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
As a courtesy, please remove the statment on the AFDs that I admitted ban evasion. There was no evasion. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Because I searched the archives and he was never reported, obviously. And the point is that maybe 8 or 9 years ago he was warned over bias, but he apparently heeded the warnings if there were indeed valid. There is no pattern of disruptive behavior from him. I already removed the AfD message but you're still indeffed. We assume good faith only up to a point, and you passed that point long ago. Мандичка 😜 23:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
He was quite inactive most of the time since 2009. I don't want to discuss this user any further. I brought him up because obviously he was the single user who created the non-notable articles, about which the dispute is about. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Why do you keep calling them "the non-notable articles," when it's already been proven to you that some are notable? If you're hoping your ban will be overturned by admin who falls for your claim these articles are not notable, good luck with that. Мандичка 😜 23:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I already said that I changed my opinion on one of them at least after references were found. A few others are now borderline, and the rest are still not notable. There was a mass of similar articles that were created by a single user, and I nominated them all. 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. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Working draft (please do not edit section)

I was indef-blocked by JzG with whom I was already in a 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 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. 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.

I stumbled across a set of similar articles from the same 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, Dilshad Said (a music teacher who published one CD that I couldn't even find on Amazon), Others 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). Another was for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cankurd, an article without any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Another one was the unreferenced article Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Merziye Feriqi Another one is Reşo Zîlan, basically a translator with no reliable sources for notability.
So these articles were lacking any indication why they were notable, and most were missing any reliable sources. Because the articles were in an obscure area, the majority of them were not discussed (but some were, like this one).
Before doing the AFD of an article that seemed non-notable, I checked Amazon, Google News, Google, Google Scholar, Google Books and other sites. But for most of these articles, I didn't find anything reliable and I noted thaat I found nothing (examples Dilshad Said where I found nothing on Amazon or Google sites.)
On many if not most of the articles most if not all users agreed that the articles are not notable. As another user said I should have nominated them all 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 arguing based on policy and in good faith.
In one article, new sources were found, which were not previously present in the article, and I now think this one is notable. But I did previoiusly search for him on Amazon.com and Google Books, where a notable writer should have been present.
Disputes happen all the time at AFD but that doesn't mean that then one should be blocked otherwise nobody will post at AFD anymore.
I did present the AFDs with search results from Amazon and various Google sources, and I only nominated articles that seemed non notable, most did not include reliable sources. There was a mass of articles that were all similar and created by the same user. That is the reason that I went about it too fast. But it happens all the time at AFD that there are many similar or disputed nominations without calls to get the nominator blocked. I assumed Academic because he is in research roles and has published some research.
There was a mass of similar articles that were created by a single user, and I nominated them all. 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. I have presented the AFD with search results from Amazon and Google Books

I changed my opinion on one of them at least after references were found. A few others are now borderline, and the rest are still not notable. There was a mass of similar articles that were created by a single user, and I nominated them all. 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. the articles is that single user wrote a mass of non-notable articles - and over 90 percent at AFD agreed they were not notable. These were experienced editors like SwisterTwister, ‎Ceosad, ‎Brustopher, C.Fred, Velella and others.

The block was wrong and unfair because first of all an indef ban is not appropriate for first ban without any warning on my talkpage prior to the day of the block. Secondly, AFD is not the easiest area, and not everybody disagreed with most of the nominations. In fact, many users agreed that the articles lack notability. Thirdly, 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.
I agree that I was doing too many AFDs in too short a time. I will agree to not discuss anymore in the AFD discussions that I initiated and to not renominate the same articles for deletion in the next 12 months. Since the dispute concerns the set of articles created by User:Vekoler, I will not nominate any article he created for deletion for the next 6 months. I took admin JzG's advice and familiarized myself with expected community behavior. My apology is above and I hope I can return to editing at an admin's permission of course
Jzg is not an uninvolved admin and therefore he should not have blocked me Jzg was involved in disputes with me previosuly as he had with many other users ( User:Kirill Lokshin User:Petri Krohn User:DtobiasUser:MichaelQSchmidt User:Harej User:Cla68 for example). As an involved admin, he should not block me, certainly not without warning.
I don't think it's up to you to propose a six-month stay of execution and then start harassing Vekoler again. I for one would suggest a WP:Topic ban on editing any Kurdish articles, but then it seems the only reason you're here in the first place is to delete Kurdish culture content or create content on Kurdish atrocities, so I'm not sure what else you'd find to do? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Hassan Rebell: Difference between revisions Add topic