User talk:Ahmadbatebi

Ahmadbatebi (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)explanation(from Ahmad Batebi): As a vandal person on this ID : Manime87 always retouches my page with wrong information in Wikipedia, I rectified  my personal information and events on my website. please refer to this page for accessing right information : http://ahmadbatebi.us/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&view=book&id=1&Itemid=59&lang=ba (Thanks)Ahmadbatebi (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Making adjustments to an article about yourself
Hi there. I notice you've made adjustments to the article about you. I'm sorry you found inaccuracies in it. Can I ask you to write to our email team (info@wikimedia.org) and have tell them what adjustments need to be made? They can do it in a way that's in line with our policies, which avoiding any conflict of interest. That's generally a better route than making the changes yourself. You can also leave a message on my talk page with the information and any supporting documentation (we can't just make changes without a source for them). - Philippe 16:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. ''Please stop deleting verified facts from the page. Just because you may not like realities of your life, it doesn't mean they did not or do not exist. You can not change your own history, so please stop vandalizing this and related pages. Your actions are self-serving and inappropriate.'' Joaj (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning
You've been advised that it is inappropriate to be editing the article about yourself. If you have concerns about the material in the article, you've been advised to email our team. Yet you have continued editing. Please stop. Continuation will lead to this account being blocked.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello there
Hi, it seems that you might be the subject of one of our articles and are displeased with some of the contents. See Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). You can also mention specific problems on Talk:Ahmad Batebi if you want specific mistakes corrected.

The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing you might be asked to do is to privately establish your identity. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC) .
 * Dear Admin


 * The message that you left for me, stating that I should refrain from editing or contributing to my Wiki page, is against the rules that govern the functioning of Wikipedia. The public has the right to have access to correct and up to date information. I understand that one of the problems of Wikipedia is that anyone can have access to a given page and edit the existing information. As such it is more than obvious and fair that the person who is the actual subject matter of the wiki page have access to it and be able to provide the information and be able to correct the misinformation provided by others.  As you may have noticed, my page does get frequent hits or visits. Prohibiting me from having access to a page that pertains to me allows others access to tamper with my information and taint my image.  It defies logic to allow others access to my information, and not allow me the same right to review and possibly correct any misinformation.  This administrative decision seems counterintuitive to the whole objective of a site that aims to provide the most accurate information to the public.  You are allowing people with ill motives to put forth misinformation about my escape.  There is, for example, an entry in the escape section of my site that indicates that a said person helped me with my escape from Iran, entry into the United States, and securing asylum. However this is not an accurate entry. The said person only helped me secure permission to enter the United States. The said person did not help me escape Iran nor did they assist me in securing asylum from the United States. The full sequence of my escape and its details are set forth in the profile section of my own personal website, please feel free to review its content at  (LINK)             http://ahmadbatebi.us/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&view=book&id=1&Itemid=59&lang=ba


 * If you visit Ms. Mazahery’s wiki page, there is no corroborative evidence that supports her claims as they pertain to my escape. Your threats or efforts to limit my access to my wiki page are both unethical and unjustifiable. If I am not able to protect my name, identity and reputation through the wiki page I will have to resort to legal means. For the last time I ask that you allow me access to my wiki page and to please carefully investigate the references provided and to stop them from their repeated attempts to distort my image and alter my difficult life story for their own benefits.  I sincerely hope that this is the last discourse I have with you regarding this matter.


 * Sincerely,
 * Ahmad Batebi


 * Your intuition and your view of how things should work are irrelevant. You're a journalist, you know very well that all publications have policies and guidelines, and if you're going to write for that pub, you have to conform to the policies and guidelines. If you have concerns about the factual accuracy, you were told exactly how to go about getting them fixed, and you were provided with the relevant guideline material. Instead, you have decided to dictate to the encyclopedia how you think things should be handled, and threatened legal action if we don't conform to your instructions. People who make legal threats here are not allowed to continue editing until the issue is resolved, thus, as noted below, I have extended the block indefinitely. PLEASE READ THE BLOCK NOTICE. It gives you specific instructions on how to proceed.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Block
Evidently you either did not understand my warning above, or you chose to ignore it and edit the article on yourself. Either way, you've now been blocked for 24 hours. If you would like to appeal the block, you are welcome to use the unblock template.  AK Radecki Speaketh  01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * what's going on here? i don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadbatebi (talk • contribs)
 * You don't understand? Please read the sections above. You have been cautioned multiple times that it is not appropriate for you to edit the page about you.  AK Radecki Speaketh  03:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)]


 * What does he mean he doesn't understand?! He seems to understand everything else quite well, yet suddenly develops comprehension problems when it doesn't suit his intentions!  He has been self-editing his page on not only the English Wiki, but the Farsi one as well for quite some time.  He is more than familiar with the rules and guidelines.  Feigning ignorance by someone who has displayed the type of behavior that this guy has is entirely in line with the rest of his strange acts.  I recommend a permanent block at a minimum.  --Vistaboy99 (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is outrageous!
This guy is using Wikipedia as his personal outlet to rewrite the information about his life and is picking and choosing what about his past and life he doesn't want to be mentioned and substitutes actual facts with strange materials that are fictional, unsourced, outright fabrications, or attacks on other individuals and attempts to discredit and defame them! He has done this by using various usernames, and continues to ignore repeated warnings against his outrageous behavior. I recommend that this page be blocked from editing. He is out of control and his malice is entirely unwarranted and unacceptable. --Vistaboy99 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef block
You have been from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at [mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org info-en@wikimedia.org] and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to unblock this user
The criticism of Ahmadbatebi's edits was largely made by one person and two sockpuppets of his (Joaj, and Joaj's sockpuppets Vistaboy99 and Autoplay91, all three of whom have been blocked). I think that the fact that Joaj, Vistaboy99, and Autoplay91 were the ones to call for Ahmadbatebi's account to be blocked, and that these three users are actually a single person who has since been banned, suggests that it is time to revisit this block.

Looking at Ahmadbatebi's edits, it seems to me that they were good-faith efforts to make his own article accurate. Also, he asked for an explanation of why this account was being blocked ("what's going on here? i don't understand"), but none was provided. It seems to me that this whole process ran badly afoul of Wikipedia's "Please do not bite the newcomers" policy (as well as the "assume good faith" policy). I recently joined wikipedia, and received a very kind and thoughtful message from Lord Spongefrog offering to help explain how wikipedia works--it's unfortunate that no one seems to have made much of an effort to explain how wikipedia works here.

Ahmadbatebi--I just wanted to say--I didn't know anything about you until today, but have been reading this article and some of the news interviews that you gave. As an American student, I'm really inspired by your courage. Actually seeing your wikipedia article & the photograph of you in Brooklyn made my day--the Fulton Ferry landing is one of my favorite places in the world and I hope you enjoyed visiting it! :)

I'm very sorry that the wikipedia community hasn't been more welcoming--as I guess you've gathered, it's a collection of random people, and while the thing does seem to work remarkably well overall, there are lots of mistakes too. I really feel terrible that your account got blocked when it seems to me that you tried in good faith to edit your page to be more accurate. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help#Managing_your_biography for information on how to get your wikipedia biography corrected. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * May I add: At the top of this Talk page, Ahmadbatebi wrote "As a vandal person on this ID : Manime87 always retouches my page with wrong information in Wikipedia." User:Manime87 is another sockpuppet of Joaj, as can be seen on his userpage.  Especially with the political nature of his WP biography, I'm concerned that User:Joaj may have had an undeclared conflict of interest, and I agree that it's time to revisit Ahmadbatebi's block.  --AFriedman (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dismiss my comments completely if they don't make sense (this isn't my area of expertise), but yes, I think the block maybe should be reviewed. The user was just trying to make (probably) good faith edits about his own biography, without fully understanding the policy. The website was added as a reference, which would sometimes be acceptable, but in this case I think it falls under WP:SPS. I don't think anyone bothered to tell him this, did they? And there's the big sockpuppet mess. Unfortunately, we have to wait until Ahmadbatebi comes back to make the unblock request himself, and he'll most likely have to verify his identity. But it probably should be reviewed, so I'd contact one of thise admins recommended to you, CordeliaNaismith. Well, there's my two cents... Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  10:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the editor should be unblocked, just as soon as they make contact. Dropping a welcome template, or at least linking to all the helpful pages provided by that template, on the page so they can familiarise themselves with WP practice and procedure might be a good idea - as might an editor giving them a little help and advice regarding same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Offer to unblock
Dear sir,

As per above it seems your original block was probably unwarranted. Unfortunately, it seems a deceptive user was able to trick one of our admins through the use of sock puppets. I apologize that this situation happened.

I will be happy to unblock you if you make a request and agree to one of the following:
 * Verify that you are the real Ahmad Batebi. We require verification for your own protection, so that no one may defame you be impersonating you.  See Username_policy; or
 * Choose a new user name

Let me know if you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, ThaddeusB (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)