User talk:Hamedhbb

September 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sahar Khodayari. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

If you follow the discussion under talk section, you will see the editors keep undoing my added content due to their POV. They don’t trust a video that I cited die to theor political interest. Hamedhbb (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Whether the content of your edits was correct or not is largely irrelevant to your block. You are blocked because your behaviour - reverting the article to your preferred version without discussion - was disruptive. In order to be unblocked, you will need to indicate your understanding of this, and explain what you will do to avoid becoming involved in such edit wars in the future. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Thanks for clarification. The main reason I was caught up is that I had no idea about 3RR. If I knew reverting my cited content. I could report them that broke 3RR before me and I would take recommended action instead of keep. Re your recommendation about discussion, there was a discussion going on about my edits. When 3 other users were keep reverting my edits based on their POV. Also there is a side discussion two of users that were opposing my edits that one recommended the other one to stop discussion with me as he has reported me. This clearly shows they could not reasonably win the dispute and instead tried using rules to push their POV. I will reference to my claims below: * Dispute about the edits while they were keep reverting my edits. [1] * In the discussion the users who blocked me mention their reason is in heir POV sources that I cited are not trustable due to his political view.[2] [3] [4] * One of the side discussion without tagging me that the group who wanted block my edits mention stop discussion with me about the topic. I wasn’t the one who didn’t want to discuss. [5] Hamedhbb (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Here, your edit summary read "Avoid behaving like an Iranian!" Here, you threatened to report someone so clearly knew about our policies and guidelines. How on earth were you only blocked for 72 hours?!? If your behaviour is not significantly different once your block expires, expect your next block to be indefinite. This one should have been. Yamla (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Welcome!

Hello, Hamedhbb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! In2wiki (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been challenged. Hamedhbb (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions at Sahar Khodayari appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors very clearly dispute the content you continue to restore and it is apparent you have no intention of waiting for consensus prior to restoring the material. This block will provide you with the time to review our policies regarding edit warring and dispute resolution. A return to edit warring or further edit summaries such as this one will likely lead to a longer block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you would really benefit from reading WP:WRONGVERSION. I hope you will return after your block. 92.10.178.176 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I doubt. I am shocked how easy it is for people to use Wikipedia for promoting their POV. It might work for something that nobody talks about. Hamedhbb (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email, the entire first paragraph is simply a play-by-play of what led to your block (i.e. your edit warring). The second paragraph, including the claim that "you ruined my image of being a free Wikipedia editor", has no basis in reality. You have no inherent right to edit however you like and to say whatever you like here. It is a private website and you must adhere to the policies that have been established through years of consensus building. I assumed good faith that, because you are a new user, you would be willing to educate yourself on the policies that have been provided to you on this page during the short block. As Yamla noted in their decline of your appeal, other admins may not have provided you the same opportunity. Please don't email me again. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo:Please consider my email as a way to grab your individual attention. Although I am a fast learner, You already know I am new here and it takes some time to learn the platform. Please don’t take it personally. It was all to do with your Wikipedia profile. Otherwise I don’t know you. Strangely enough I liked your explanation of Wikipedia being “private”. It really completed the image along the fact that you are one of optimist admins. I had no intention at all to edit the page in a way I liked it. I just wanted to add a cited fact to the page that a group was trying to hide. If I wanted to vandalise the page, I could have done it in easier ways rather than spending time to unblock my newly created account. I had no special interest in the topic as well. The fact that I was going to add is already available on Persian version of the page. Thanks for taking time to reply to my email but I have no interest to make contributions to a private organisation who I am not get paid from. I already spend enough time for free. Hamedhbb (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you were indeed a fast learner, then you wouldn't have been blocked, as you were warned various times and ultimately given a long rope. This unreliable information of yours is not in the Persian version either, and even if it was, that's not a proper argument. No one was trying to "hide" anything, you were edit warring (7 times!) by adding unreliable stuff, which is indeed considered vandalism. Looking at this, I seriously doubt you didn't have "no special interest in the topic". --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I did not block Hamedhbb for vandalism, as their edits were not vandalism. The block was for unabated edit warring during a content dispute.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran It feels like you have a personal interest in hiding what I added. Please check Catalan version of the page that is a word to word translation from what I added and you didn’t seem to like. The Persian language page does cover similar content but I didn’t add it and hence it is discussed in a different way. You just admitted that your group reverted an edit I made 7 times. Since I added the content and your group was deleting it, technically you breached the 3RR before me. However, your group reported me before I learn how I can report you. I was trying to expose the cited facts for other people to expand and you didn’t seem to like it. I guess we can name it censorship. That’s why I asked you to be clear about the facts instead of hiding it. You could edit the content and explain his father video was not accepted genuine by some people. Besides, I don’t need to explain to you my learning abilities but just compare the length of time you have your account live with mine. I don’t need to challenge your English or your abilities as you did!

Ponyo thanks for clarification but as I mentioned above, by your organisation’s standards they have to be blocked as well. Obviously it is somethings that has to be dealt between yourselves. Hamedhbb (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamedhbb, there is no "your group" and your continued structuring of your edits as "us vs. them" is not helping. You were editing against multiple long-term editors and it was clear you were not going to stop despite many warnings. That is why you were blocked. If you want to have the disputed content included, the WP:BURDEN is on you to get talk page WP:CONSENSUS to restore it rather than continuing to revert. It is your actions alone that resulted in you getting blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Jezebel, also, i would add that what is written or not on other Wikipedia pages is not a legit reason for inclusion, please read WP:CIRCULAR. I hope that you can use the time provided by your block to educate yourself with our guidelines (if you need any help for doing so, do not hesitate to ping me or any other experienced editor), thus, when you will be unbocked, i'll be glad to discuss with you about the content you tried to add to the article (if you want so, ofc), but on one condition, you need to behave constructively, i.e. like an editor who's here to build an encyclopedia, this includes avoiding edit summaries/posts saying stuffs like "Don't behave like an Iranian" or other irrelevant comments about fellow Wikipedians. Please focus on content, not contributors. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a quick look on contributions of creator of the page and It is more than clear he is following only his POV as a opposition iranian government. Every single pages he had contributions in is either against Iranian constitutes or opposition people or religious minority’s in Iran and I doubt there is anyway he could avoid injection of his POV in his contributions. If Wikipedia is happy with this, I don’t have any problems regardless of my POV but this boldly contradicts with my academic interests. Good luck with your private encyclopaedia. wikaviani please don’t use my comment to induce your POV on Ponyo. You clearly mentioned on talk page that your only reason for not accepting my edit was state owned media is not reliable even if it is a video of Sahar’s father who posted a photo with on his social media account. This is not acceptable while that source has wikipedia page and also there are citations from many state owned or operated media including BBC. I understand your point but it’s not something you could hide based on you personal view. Hamedhbb (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block indefinitely and revoked your talk page access, as you have expressed that you have no intention of contributing to the Wikipedia. If you change your mind, WP:UTRS is open to you. --Yamla (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]