Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 16 December 2015

Your recent edits

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)

December 2015

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."

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

Request reason:

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 ("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 Misplaced Pages: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[REDACTED] 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-Misplaced Pages. 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 . 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[REDACTED] 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 , ‎Ceosad , ‎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.

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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Your reason here 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 ("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 ]. I came across a set of similar articles from a single user of which many seemed to be against the ] besides lacking reliable sources. Examples include articles on non notable teachers, translators, university assistant teachers, or writers. For example for ], an article without any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Another one was the unreferenced article on Merziye Feriqi where also . Another one is Reşo Zîlan, basically a translator with no reliable sources for notability, where . Or (a music teacher who according to the article published only one CD that I couldn't even find on Amazon), Other 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 ] 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 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 ]). And that user who wrote these article (not all were non-notable, but many were) has also ] 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. (], 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. ] 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[REDACTED] 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 ] and ]. 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 ] or WP:BIO or ] or ]. 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 ] that the nominator is blocked . 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[REDACTED] 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 , ‎ , , , who did their argumentation based on policy (unlike some others who said they voted because of ]. 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. 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. ] (]) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here 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 ("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 ]. I came across a set of similar articles from a single user of which many seemed to be against the ] besides lacking reliable sources. Examples include articles on non notable teachers, translators, university assistant teachers, or writers. For example for ], an article without any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Another one was the unreferenced article on Merziye Feriqi where also . Another one is Reşo Zîlan, basically a translator with no reliable sources for notability, where . Or (a music teacher who according to the article published only one CD that I couldn't even find on Amazon), Other 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 ] 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 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 ]). And that user who wrote these article (not all were non-notable, but many were) has also ] 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. (], 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. ] 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[REDACTED] 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 ] and ]. 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 ] or WP:BIO or ] or ]. 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 ] that the nominator is blocked . 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[REDACTED] 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 , ‎ , , , who did their argumentation based on policy (unlike some others who said they voted because of ]. 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. 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. ] (]) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here 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 ("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 ]. I came across a set of similar articles from a single user of which many seemed to be against the ] besides lacking reliable sources. Examples include articles on non notable teachers, translators, university assistant teachers, or writers. For example for ], an article without any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Another one was the unreferenced article on Merziye Feriqi where also . Another one is Reşo Zîlan, basically a translator with no reliable sources for notability, where . Or (a music teacher who according to the article published only one CD that I couldn't even find on Amazon), Other 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 ] 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 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 ]). And that user who wrote these article (not all were non-notable, but many were) has also ] 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. (], 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. ] 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[REDACTED] 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 ] and ]. 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 ] or WP:BIO or ] or ]. 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 ] that the nominator is blocked . 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[REDACTED] 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 , ‎ , , , who did their argumentation based on policy (unlike some others who said they voted because of ]. 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. 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. ] (]) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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. And that user who wrote the nonnotable article 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.

--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)

• IMO Hassan Rebell, you are either targeting the article creator or randomly nominating Kurdish articles. How else can you explain Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nadir Nadirov? On what basis do you claim he is a "Non notable engineer"? He's massively notable. See AfD for some the sources I found very quickly. You are required to follow the steps of WP:BEFORE which you did not do, so stop telling us to AGF. —Мандичка 😜 22:05, 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)

That's BS. For example, in creating Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Servet Kocakaya you claimed "I can not even find any CDs from this musician on amazon.com." Amazon.com sells three of Kocakaya's CDs! And that's the American Amazon - Amazon.de and Amazon.fr sells dozens of his diffrent CDs. And I don't believe you Googled either as I found plenty of sources. You created two AfDs eight minutes apart, and another two a mere four minutes apart. —Мандичка 😜 02:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have checked, that was a mistake. But my other searches at Amazon.com were correct, like for Dilhad. But even so, I was comparing the article against WP:NMUSIC, and the article at the time did not seem to meet this criteria. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Dilhad? You mean Dilshad Said, the one you called a "non notable music teacher and hobby musician" who is here conducting the Czech National Symphony Orchestra performing his own music in Prague? Which is also available for purchase on Amazon. What a hobby!!! —Мандичка 😜 03:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes i mean Dilshad and not Dalshad. Are you going to say now that i'm responsible that the article was wrongly named? If his common name is different than any name in the article, it cannot be my fault. You have now added the other spelling to the article, that is good. One of the results of putting an article to AFD is also article correction and improvement which is good. But what really concerns me is how the article compares to the WP:NMUSIC. It's really just arguing by policy and pointing to the criteria at WP:NMUSIC that would satisfy everyone on his notability. But instead you or Shawn (cant remember which) are voting based on WP:POINT. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The article was not wrongly named. Surely since you're such an expert on determining notability for Kurdish people, you would be aware there are several variations of spellings for Kurdish names. And here's another one you claimed had no CDs at Amazon Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ayşe Şan - funny how when I searched Amazon for Ayşe Şan, her CDs popped up on the very first page. . So your claim you searched is bullshit. —Мандичка 😜 02:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement on being an expert on AFD. The article should also make clear why it is notable and reference reliable sources. It is also the responsiblity of the article creator to include the most common name of the subject in the article. Please remain civil and assume good faith, I didn't call your claim BS because you didn't point to the fact that the article did not include the most common name. Shawn has also made mistakes in the afd due to confusion. Also in the regional Amazon site, the second result is missing, most results are from Rüya Ça?la, and besides the A.S. CD is marked as "unavailable". I referenced over 20 searches to amazon, gBooks, GNews, GScholar and so on. Like User:Ceosad said, it would have been better to bundle them all in one nomination due to the relatively large number. Also User:SisterSwister found nothing better: "Delete for now at best as this may simply need better Turkish attention but my searches found nothing better than a few Books and browsers links, one of which said she was "renowned". Unless this can be better improved, this is likely best deleted for now as there's not much to confirm the information here." Are you now also going to accuse SisterTwister like you did to me? Also in the Dilshaid article you mentioned above, others didn't find sources "Delete for now at best as the two native language wikis show nothing better and the current sources are not seemingly convincing to suggest better.". You have still not explained how she meets any of the 12 criteria of NMUSIC. For example why would you consier Çagdas Müzik a major record label? Has he had a single or album on any country's national music chart? Has he had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country? Has he won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award? Has he won first, second or third place in a major music competition? Has he been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network? What would be really important to know is how the article compares against the WP:NMUSIC policy. Unfortunately I have not yet seen any policy-based arguments from you based on this policy. I am still waiting on that. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 12:22, 16 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 ("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 Misplaced Pages: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.

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. 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.

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[REDACTED] 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 , ‎Ceosad , ‎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 which discouraged any further delete votes.

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! Thus and in more general terms in[REDACTED] generally: 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[REDACTED] 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-Misplaced Pages. They would silence nominators to preserve the rights of authors who create non notable articles, it seems.

The block was wrong and unfair because first of all an indef ban is not appropriate for first ban without even 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. But I believe that an indef first ban without warning is way too harsh. I will agree to not discuss anymore in the AFD discussions that I initiated and to not renominate them again for deletion. Since the dispute concerns the set of articles created by User:Vekoler, I will not nominate any article he created for deletion. 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

• Requests for unblock