AfghanBios
Dr. Sayed Noorullah Jalili moved to draftspace
editAn article you recently created, Dr. Sayed Noorullah Jalili, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GPL93 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Sayed Noorullah Jalili
edit
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 Draft:Sayed Noorullah Jalili, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. 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. GPL93 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
December 2021
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
AfghanBios (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a spam or advertising page. I am new to wikipedia and interested in the Afghan Political Scene. I have seen that an article was previously made on this person and it contained misleading and inaccurate information as per the USACE website and other valid resources from the US government in regards to this person. I cited multiple other articles and news resources to back notability and validity of information. I intended to make many other pages and edits to pages of Afghan Politicians as some information is misleading. I admit that some information in this article which I wrote seemed one-sided however I would like to justify that it is my first time writing a wikipedia article and I was going to make significant changes until my account was banned and the article deleted which I can now not get back. Apart from a few areas, I remained neutral when presenting the information throughout the rest of the wikipedia article. I would like to kindly request an unblock of my account and a restoration of the wikipedia page which I made under the name Dr. Sayed Noorullah Jalili. Thank you to the due diligent wikipedia moderators for assistance in improving the articlehowever I strongly believe that this was a mistake and completely blocking my account and deleting the article was too far and unnecessary. I have read articles about the user Bbb23 and unfortunately I am hugely disappointed that Wikipedia allows such users to delete countless pages without warnings and advices. AfghanBios (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't think that you are a completely new user and/or that you have more experience than you are suggesting here. In any event, I don't think you will be unblocked to edit in this topic area, at least at this time. If there is something else you want to edit about, please tell us what that might be. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
AfghanBios (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I already submitted one request for unblocking but it got denied. I am requesting further information and reviewing from the same administrator or a different one. They have written that they are not sure I am an entirely new user however have provided no evidence or reason for their claim. I am entirely new to Wikipedia and to start creating pages, I watched tutorials on YouTube to use features like infobox and others. My page which I spent time on has been deleted without a proper reason with evidence to support my blocking. I believe that there is some prejudice going on with the topic I am discussing and I will raise my issue to the higher Wikipedia editorial administrators if my case is not resolved in a diligent manner. As the second administrator did not comment on me doing anything related to spam or advertising, it also shows that the first administrator blocked and removed my article for no reason at all. I understand the issue of neutrality and as I claimed, I am neutral in this matter and had no connection to the subject of the article. Maybe the article seemed one-sided but it was a first draft and as I am new to wikipedia, I did not know the guidelines for submitting a draft for review before sending to the main space. It is a simple mistake which could be resolved without blocking my entire account and deleting an article which I spent my time on. I am once again, kindly requesting, a resolution to my case or I will cease to use wikipedia again for writing purposes and will boycott the administration behind wikipedia that blocks users for absolutely no reason. It was completely unnecessary to delete the whole article. A simple warning would have sufficed and given my a heads up on what to change. The article, in my opinion, was free from any spam or advertising and presented all the facts which I had as per the sources available to me. If there is anything wrong with it, please restore my article so I can change it and then publish it again. AfghanBios (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Hi AfghanBios. I've read the deleted article and unfortunately I don't believe you are a new editor either. It seems a lot more likely that you are a undisclosed paid editor, which is against Wikipedia rules. If this is correct and you have been paid to create this and/or other articles, you need to follow the disclosure requirements of this policy and give some indication that you will abide by it when making future edits. Please consider this in any future unblock requests. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
Someone else will review your request in due course, there is no specific timetable, as administrators are volunteers here on their own time. There are no "higher administrators". There is no prejudice involved. I did not comment on the spam/advertising because I didn't think it necessary as it's very clear. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
You didn't write about this person by chance. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
"I would like to say again, 331dot. All of this is circumstantial and you are providing no in-depth reasoning or evidence for your claims. You claim, I am an advertiser and labelled me as spam, but I would like to know what evidence actually points to that. You said I didn't write about this person by chance and it was intentional. To that, I have to say, is intentional writing forbidden in wikipedia? I intended to write on a multitude of Afghan politicians. The fact that you have assumed my stance on writing about this person, is again circumstantial and a complete guess by you without any evidence at all. I will say this for the 3rd time now, I am not paid nor do I have any affiliation to that person and even if I were to have any affiliation, you are not supposed to judge me on that but rather the quality and neutrality of my article. In the article, I did not include any speeches of praise nor did I paint the subject in a light of glory. If there were any issues in neutrality and certain sentences were out of context or irrelevant, you or the other admins could have left a note to change it and moved it out of the live space for me to make the edits and then submit for reviewing, properly. However, deleting it completely? I feel as though that is unfair as per the wikipedia guidelines. I can personally pinpoint multiple pages which violate your "laws" of writing but that is up to you as the esteemed admin.
- I'm not esteemed, I just have extra buttons. I absolutely believe you that there are other articles that warrant deletion or other action. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and as there are over 6 million articles to manage, inappropriate articles can get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help out, you can help us identify other inappropriates articles for possible action. Since I'm not in the room with you, circumstantial is all I have to go on. If I am in error, another administrator will remove the block. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
"No worries, 331dot. I appreciate your review regardless and will await another administrators review as well for a final verdict. I agree that it isn't possible to tell the circumstances unless with me in a room but what you can tell the truth and my intentions from is my writing, which was deleted. My writing will prove whether there was any violation. My main point was that if any issues were present with the article, I should've been left a directive message by the first admin to fix it up and make it neutral but deletion and blocking seemed a little stretched and unnecessary. As you said there are 6 million articles out there, some which feature extremely inappropriate and misleading information but the fact that those articles are still up and mines was deleted after a day on wikipedia, is concerning. I would also like to ask if you have read the article to actually come to a conclusion or whether your judgment was dependent and an extra to the verdict of the first admin. Nevertheless, thank you for your review. Will await further information."
- I did read it and came to that conclusion myself without considering what the other admin said. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
"331dot, could you please show me which part of the article made you become suspicious of spam/advertising and which part did not abide by wikipedia's guidelines?"
AfghanBios (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In response to the admin Euryalus, I will reiterate once again that I am not paid nor do I have any affiliation to the person I was writing about. The figure was a candidate in a presidential election 2 years ago and there would be no benefit for me in writing about him today. This is my 3rd time reiterating my stance on the topic. I was writing of free-will and did not realize and still am not sure of what I wrote that seemed like I was paid or that was excessive spam or advertising or any for that fact. You advised that if I was a paid editor, I should mention that in my unblock request. I am not a paid editor. Please unblock my account. It's fine, you don't even need to restore the article if you think I am a paid editor. I made this account to make edits to multiple pages and after simply making one, I have been blocked. I don't need the article and I will refrain from writing about that individual ever again two prove that I am not a paid editor nor do I have any affiliation to this person. Even though that is restricting my right of free-will writing on wikipedia, I will accept it to prove my stance. I don't want the article restored. Please give me back my account. I am also yet to see one admin take a quote or paragraph out of the article which shows that I am a paid editor. I can not access the article or my account. Please consider my unblock request otherwise I will permanently delete my account and refrain from using wikipedia again. I have wasted countless hours writing, proof-reading and publishing my first article despite the topic. Now, I have wasted countless hours arguing with wikipedia admins to give me back my account. A person who worked hard to create a piece of content and then go through the effort of submitting it into the encyclopedia should get the right to their work and the right to create more pieces. This is a major issue with wikipedia and it truly disappoints me that this is what every user goes through on here these days. AfghanBios (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
User has withdrawn their request. If you change your mind, you may make another. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
There is no means to delete an account, for both technical and legal reasons. You are free to abandon your account. Once you click "Publish changes", the edit is no longer yours and belongs to Wikipedia, as noted immediately above that button("By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.") You have no "right of free will" on Wikipedia to do as you wish without restriction, limitation, or criticism- that statement only further leads me to believe you aren't writing about this person by chance. Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- No worries, thank you. I will abandon the account and prevent myself from ever writing on wikipedia again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AfghanBios (talk • contribs)
- So you are withdrawing your unblock request? 331dot (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have withdrew my unblock request.
Block evasion
editThis user was caught setting up a sockpuppet account to evade their block and continue spamming, as SJYTMAIN (now blocked). This should count against any future unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't initiated any sock puppet accounts, I am not sure what this means.
- The account SJYTMAIN has been confirmed by a checkuser to be a sock puppet of this account. If you didn't create that account yourself, it is still meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not initiate any account. Anything that happens to it, I am not liable.
- You don't have to have initiated the account. Please read WP:MEAT. The other account was blocked by a checkuser, meaning that there is private technical evidence to support it. If you aren't going to request to be unblocked, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
AfghanBios (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to request an unblock of my account so I can continue to use wikipedia freely and create different pages and different edits. I was blocked because admins suspected that I was paid for advertising an individual but to prove that I am not paid by this individual. I will refrain from writing about this subject and move on to other edits. I am not a paid advertiser and would like to request an unblock so I can exercise my right of writing and adding to the encyclopedia. In response to the admin Yamla, I did not initiate any account nor am I liable to it so it should not be held against me in this unblock request. I am simply trying to edit again and write on wikipedia. I am now aware of the different guidelines and rules on wikipedia and will adhere to all of them in the future. If I were to violate any guidelines again then I permit the permanent blocking of my account however for now, I have not done anything severely wrong and can prove my innocence if unblocked. Thank you for consideration of my request. AfghanBios (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser evidence confirms you evaded your block through the use of multiple accounts. Even if it hadn't, the identical edit UPE histories of this and the SJYTMAIN account would be sufficient proof. Unfortunately we're past the point where these dishonest unblock request are a worthwhile use of volunteer time, so am disabling talkpage access. If you wish to lodge further appeals you can do so at WP:UTRS. A necessary starting point for any such appeal would be to admit the socking and publicly disclose your paid editor status. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)