User talk:Orartu

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts using the account User:Shervin Noor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like a little more information regarding the abuse of multiple accounts. The accounts are handled by the same person, but how was that discovered? Looking at the contributions I see no cross-over edits, so why were the accounts checked?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC


 * This account was blocked after an apparent bad faith SPI filing. Further investigation showed the multiple accounts. According to policy, yes, multiple accounts can be used for privacy. However, I do not see that here. I see multiple accounts used to avoid scrutiny and "to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". This is why I blocked the accounts, however, I have no problem with review by another admin. TN X Man  16:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the SPI filing was inappropriate, and closing down the SPI was the right thing to do. I can also see why it would arouse suspicion if you had checked the histories of Mani1 and Orartu's accounts. Orartu is filing a SPI on a user who, apart from one harmless edit, was active before the Orartu account was created. In the circumstances there is a reasonable suspicion that Orartu is a banned user who had previously clashed with Mani1. I feel a search for a banned account which linked to the Orartu account would be worthwhile. Turning up the Shervin Noor account, which appears to be operating reasonably, is quite incidental. A less confrontational and more helpful approach in the circumstances might have been to approach one of the accounts by email and question the reason for the second account.
 * Be that as it may. What I'd like to see happen here is:
 * A confirmation that this account has been reasonably checked against any banned user who might have been involved with Mani1;
 * If a connection is found, that this account is blocked indefinitely;
 * If no connection is found, that the account is unblocked and the user is instructed on how to create a clean start account.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no connection in the past three months between Orartu and any previous accounts involved with Mani1. However, based on emails received from Orartu, this appears to be a dispute on fa: that has spilled over to the English Wikipedia. SilkTork, if you would like to unblock Orartu, that's OK by me. If they wish to start a new account, they should familiarize themselves with the rules for doing so. If Orartu has issues with Mani1 or any of the other users they mentioned in their email, they need to follow the dispute resolution guidelines. TN X Man  15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A dispute on another language Wiki spilling over here makes sense. OK, I'll unblock to allow a new account to be created, provided that Orartu notifies me or ArbCom by email of the new account, and no longer edits from this one.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chilla Gejasi


The article Chilla Gejasi has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article is a WP:CFORK of the article Yaldā

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)