Just letting you know the section you started at the talk page of the admin noticeboard has been moved to the noticeboard itself and it would be a good idea for you to read the replies there and review WP:SOCK. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, I never used the other account (now deactivated) in the same discussion piece at the same time. But I do thank you for removing/blocking that account per my own request.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guardian Analytics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mountain View (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kazemita1,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tafsir Roshan for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, DivaKnockouts 00:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't do that. If you want to start an article and add content to it later, you should use your sandbox. This is your sandbox. — DivaKnockouts 00:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.Kazemita1 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also create other sandboxes of you are using one. This can be done by creating an article like this "User:Kazemita1/sandbox/NAMEOFARTICLE". If you ever need anything, ping me on my talk page. — DivaKnockouts 00:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. That was indeed a helpful hint as my sandbox was already full.Kazemita1 (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I am incorrect, but it appears as though you are creating many articles very rapidly with very similar content. As I am not an expert in your field, I will not presume that you are doing anything wrong, just please be careful. Best wishes, and please let me know if you have any questions. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend,

Thank you for your comment. The reason they are being generated so rapidly is solely because I have only weekend to work on them. Otherwise, I would probably created them gradually. If notability is a concern however, I will do my best to bring in more scholarly references (preferably in English).Kazemita1 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rawz al-jinan ve ruh al-jinan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawz al-jinan ve ruh al-jinan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kazemita1,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Tasneem Tafsir should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasneem Tafsir .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Ajayupai95 (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kazemita1,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tafsir Hedayat for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Ajayupai95 (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

have a cookie.good job at creating articles but please expand it further.:) Davidjohn13 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will do my best.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kazemita!!!! Of course such edition resolve problems, and you can also add a little bit more as and when possible! I see that you've added some bare urls, which you can avoid otherwise you're doing a great job!!! I'm really sorry now for putting your article for deletion...:(Ajayupai95 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up!!! And I'm sorry ... :) Ajayupai95 (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It is good to have users like you guys that guarantee the quality of Wikipedia. and thanks for the Baklava; indeed is one of my favorites--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ABU l-FATH al-DAYLAMI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yaman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you either stop creating these small articles that say nothing or start adding some information. You were asked in Tasneem Tafsir case the same thing. I haven't a clue what "century exegesis" is and the phrase in all the articles. It's hard to tell if the subject is a person or a book.

Also, interwiki links no longer go inside articles. See WP:WIKIDATA for more details. Bgwhite (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up on Tasneem Tafsir as I was not sure the discussion got serious. I went ahead and added the century number to Menhaj Al-Sadeghin as well. Thanks for that as well.

Wow! So Wikipedia can detect if there is a similar article in other languages? That certainly means less work for me. Will keep that in mind.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, ABU l-FATH al-DAYLAMI. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – placeholder. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at placeholder – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. NE Ent 22:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kazemita1. You have new messages at J04n's talk page.
Message added 22:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

J04n(talk page) 22:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.
• I copy-edited it a little bit but please realize that I'm not an expert in this area, so double check that I didn't change the meaning of anything.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

J04n(talk page) 12:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this - are you sure about the letter"v" in the title? If that's a waw, as I believe it is, and the word is the Arabic for "and", the word normally spelled "wa", I believe. PiCo (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch man! You are absolutely right. I just need to know how I can change the name now. Thanks alotKazemita1 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of thing I don't know about. A redirect would work, but there might be some other, more preferable, way. If you can find an admin, you can ask on their talk-page (there are sure to be admins who have left messages here on your own page). PiCo (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you consifer adding your misyar info remember this discussion already occurred and after much talk it was rejected. Misyar is permanent marriage while muta is not. The criticism is about the temporary nature of mitah. So the comparisob is way off. You are trying to build a house of sand. You claim some scholar said misyar is temporary or that sunnis practice temporary? Well whoever you qilioted knows nothing about this topic or you have simply misquoted. This is proven from common sense alone becaude if sunnis practice temporary marriage then why are we so against muta. Anyone with logic can see the cinfusion in your edits. And anyway if you feel they are the same then add rhem on the misyar page not on criticism of twelvers page. This is criticism of twelver not criticism of sunni to make twelvers feel better. You want to defend murah then defend it by saying why the criticism of it as sexual deviance is incorrect according to twelvers.instead your trying to defend a wrong with another so called wrong. Thats wrong. Remember misyar was already rejected before in the artivle so dont keep adding it without consent.Suenahrme (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother reading what the scholar said, before reverting my edit? She realizes Misyar is permanent and Mutah is temporary, yet she finds similarities between them. Also, I read the Washington post article that was posted as a reference for the allegation that Mutah being a cover for prostitution. That did not come from the article, itself, but by just a female activist. You need better references for such a big claim.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just admitted misayar = permanent & you admit the scholar says this. Well guess what that is why misyar was rejected for being added on the section in the previous discussion on the talk page. I think your having trouble realising that the reason mitah is criticised is because of it temporary bature. I dont know how many times i have to tell you this. Unless you can find a remporary sunni marriage you must stop trying to add the misyar section. Ni one is criticizing mutah for aby other reason than its temporary nature so fing something that is also temporary in other faiths if you want to include. But misyar is not it so stop reverting your edit when it is incorrect and pkus it has already been rejected for includion. And read all the sorces for pristitution given dont just take 1 and say its not enough. The end result is that this is what the refs say.Suenahrme (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mutah is not criticized just because of its temporary nature. It is criticized for multiple reasons, namely the fact that it is for men's pleasure. For this matter, Misyar is also found to be of similar category and criticized accordingly. Take this source for example:

"The sole object of the Misyar and Muta marriages is for sexual gratification in a licit manner. Like most practices in Islamic society, this is also skewed in favour of the male."

Islam and the West: The Clash Between Islamism and Secularism, By Mushtaq K Lod, p. 59

As you mentioned the end result is determined by the references. So do not start an edit war and let the reliable sources show up in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. Of course mutah is onlt criticised because of its temporary nature. If mutahwas permanent then no sunni or westener on earth would be criticizing it. Misyar is permanent. No one is criticising mutah in the section for any other readon than its temporary nature. Temporary doesnt equal permanent. Therefore stop including your incorrect edit. Also your problem with me should also extend to the other editors who already rejected mistars addition on the talk page. So stop making it as though i am the only one holding this position. Until u can prove another temporary marriage from sunnis or any other religion stop your wrong edit.Suenahrme (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is unbelievable? The fact that Misyar and Mutah are equally criticized by this western source?--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is unbelievable is your stubbornness. Nothing other than the temporary narure of muta is criticised in the article yet you want to add musyar in the article. And just because the source says misyar like mutah is solely practiced for sexual pleasure does it make it true. Misyar is not practiced like mutah for solely sexual pleasure because it is permanent marriage. Simple as that. Should we then cobclude that all permanent marriage is practiced solely for sexual pleasure. So your ref here is not relevant because it nakes no sense. You need to add a marriage that is temporary if you want to include it along with the mutah section. Good luck in finding that. Anyway this article is called criticidm of twelver. Not criticism of others unrelated practices to make twelvers feel better about themsleves. Unless you can relate the temporary nature of mytah with another religions practice you are only defending a loosing cause.Suenahrme (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Nothing other than the temporary narure of muta is criticised in the article is solely because you are removing sourced content from the article:

• "The sole object of the Misyar and Muta marriages is for sexual gratification in a licit manner. Like most practices in Islamic society, this is also skewed in favour of the male."

Islam and the West: The Clash Between Islamism and Secularism, By Mushtaq K Lod, p. 59 Kazemita1 (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, there are sources that criticize other aspects of Mut'a which they find in Misyar as well.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is just you trying to add any persons statement no matter the inaccuracy of it just so you can have anything to equate mutah with misyar so you can divert the focus off mutah. Again the statement you use cant be used because misyar is permanent so the sole object of it clearly not sexual pleasure like muta. Otherwise the ref you are using is also implying that all other permanent forms of marriage are also solely for sexual pleasure. So why dont you also add that the western conception of marriage is also solely for sexual pleasuee? Why only focus on the permanent sunni misyar? Your argument really stands on sand. If you want to add that misyar is solely for sexual pleasure like mutah then must also add that all other permanent forms of marriage are also solely for pleasure.Suenahrme (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand your English very well, as there are several grammatical and spelling errors. But just so you know we in Wikipedia do not do original research[1]. We simply find relevant reliable sources and reflect the scholar's opinion in the article. Bottom line is you are only basing your arguments on your own personal opinions but I am talking based on references. My sources are saying the existence of such marriages (that are solely based on pleasure and not a regular family) is not specific to Twelver Shia Islam and there are similar examples in other sects.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that a person can find any ref to make a point on wiki no matter how false it is? If i looked hard enough im sure i can find a ref to pursue any agenda i wished on wiki. You are simply finding a ref to suit your agenda no matter how absurd and false it is. Tell me how your ref that equates permanent misyar solely with pleasure works? U just said that misyar is not based upon a regular fanily. Tell me how that is so when it is a permanent marriage? If it was solely for pleasure like muta then tell me why it is permanent? Why not maje it temporary like shia if that were the case? Do you see how your agenda is making you use a source that vlearly has no right to be included in wiki. Unless you can show that misyar is temporary then it has no right to be included alongside temporary mutah. You seem to be adding any content just to defend your creed. No legitimate sunni would ever say that your 12th imam is the mahdi. That defies even the basics common sense of the most illiterate sunnis. Yet you see no problem with adding this just to make yourself feel better. I hope some other wiki editors will eventually make you realise this is not the way to go about things.Suenahrme (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have doubts about my sources, there is a place in Wikipedia to ask. It is called Reliable Source Noticeboard. Just go to WP:RSN and ask about my sources(both about Occultation and similarity of Misyar and Mut'a). If they find them unreliable then you can remove them; otherwise if they said they are OK, you have no right to revert my edits. This is how Wikipedia works.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unvelievable. "They are very similar". Cery nice edit. In what way are they cery similar. You dont answer any of my questions but you keep reverting your ddit. Wiki doesnt exist ro make you feel better about yourself. You cant add blatantly false info just to give yourself confort. answer in what way they are similar? Mutah is criticised for it tenporary nature here. So tell me in what way mistar can be added alonside it for criticisn when it is permanent? The duty is on you not me to gain proof for its addition because the addition of misyar was already rejected on the talk pg. so stop trying to make it like i am the one that needs to work for its rejection.Suenahrme (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brother i have fixed the first paragraph with regard to the violence as all 3 sources state. While most violence was under Behbahani's tenure, it was not confined purely to Iraq - as the sources show. I also fixed the positioning of the sources in the paragraph. Thankyou.إسماعيل (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason at all for the word "heir" to be bolded. Bolding, so far as I know, is done in the first sentence of an article to identify the article title. I'm not aware of any other reason for it. Go ahead and de-bold. (Apologies for the slow response, but I'm giving up editing Wikipedia - too big a waste of my time). PiCo (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

by bolded I meant the text in your talk page; otherwise it is not bolded in the article. I meant keeping it or leaving it in the lead.

As for wasting time on Wikipedia you are on the right track friend.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for contributing several articles in Category:Shia tafsir. As the head category Category:Tafsir is already a member of Category:Quranic exegesis and Category:Islam sciences, there was no need to put them into those categories as well (see WP:SUBCAT), and I have removed them.

It would probably be more useful to add relevant categories from Category:Books by date and Category:Books by language. I hope this helps! – Fayenatic London 17:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks. Will have to do that for Sunni Tafsirs as well.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your contributions, just did some copy-editing to your tafsir pages. Unfortunately, Shia and Sufi tafsirs are not covered in wikipedia. I am adding these new pages to List of tafsir works, do you think classifying tafsirs to Shia, Sufi,Sunni is helpful?. Kiatdd (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! As for categorization, I must say it is a bit tough to draw a line sometimes. I mean you may call a Tafsir Sufi, but it is still Shia according to some sources. What are the existing categories right now?--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Currently there are two categories Shia Tafsir and Sunni Tafsir. An institute called 'Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought',from Jordan, translates and publishes sunni tafsirs: www.altafsir.com, another sunni tafsir is translated into english: www.qtafsir.com. People started uploading them to sura pages (pages in template:Sura),as a result those pages mainly reflect sunni accounts, for example sura Al-Kauthar largely reflects sunni interpretations, i.e, 'kauthar' refers to a river in paradise, with beautiful birds, sweeter than honey, and so forth, and there is no mention of Shia interpretation of al-kauthar, perhaps because shia tafsirs are not translated into english. Tafsir shobar is in arabic, rather difficult to translate even for bilinguals. Another issue is wp:rs, according to guidelines we should not use 'primary sources' to edit articles. Shias, sunnis, and sufis disagree about the interpretation and occasions of revelation of some verses of the Qur'an.Kiatdd (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Mahdi and Muhammad al-Mahdi, some are on a mission to reject the doctrine and and reveal the 'true' version of islam, they need to be cleaned-up. Kiatdd (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to know more about your last statement. Curiosity is killing me :). --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Truth is a humorous article, referring to extreme and weird viewpoints in w.p whic is difficult to deal with.Kiatdd (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Bbb23 (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Furat Ibn Furat Ibn Ibrahim al-Kufi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hamid Algar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinity College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kazemita1, I'm contacting you because we need some Farsi translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on fa.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Farsi Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guardian Analytics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ACH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bábism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bāb

Táhirih (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bāb

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kazemita1. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me, just a few suggestion, none of which prevent recreation

• Looks underlinked to me, Sunni and Shia at least will have articles
• But only link once, Ja'far al-Sadiq had three linkings
• Might be helpful to say that Tafsir means exegesis (which I've linked, not all readers will know the word)
• Better to have refs in-line, but not obligatory
• It's unusual to start refs with the title, rather than the author(s) and the year of publication

As I say, these are recommendations, up to you whether you follow them

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK too, I tweaked the text a bit. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to WP:ANI, see here. The AN page is for general notices to administrators, while ANI is for specific problems that need administrator assistance (the "I" stands for "Incidents"). I just wanted to inform you in case you wondered what happened to your report. -- Atama頭 22:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salam alaikum, can't believe I forgot to ask you about this earlier. I started a topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam/Shi'a_Islam_task_force#Articles_which_include_Sunni_views_but_not_Shi.27a_views and it is something which will need more than one person. I notified Faizhaider but I think he is on Wikivacation or something. What I had in mind there were articles like wudu or wali and stuff. Often, the Sunni view isn't mentioned as the Sunni view in articles like these; it is simply presented as the view of all of Islam. I don't think it will be complicated to amend but it will be time consuming. If you know anybody else that could help, could you let them know too? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alaykum salam. Thanks for the heads up. I will take a look as soon as I get a chance. Cheers.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kazemita. I can understand you wanted to bring the person who was apparently offering to mediate up to speed about how the copyright conflict had been seen by admins, i.e. the fact that the user had been sanctioned for repeatedly pasting long quotes. But people are humiliated by blocks. It's better if you can avoid mentioning a block explicitly on article talk, because it will be taken personally. One way of doing it could have been to say "[Name] is violating both wikipedia copyright policy and the law with these long quotations of copyrighted text, compare his page [link to the block notice]". It's the same, but it puts it on the violation rather than the sanction (with a link to the sanction as evidence). You may think I'm splitting hairs, but there's a bit of common sense in it too, I think. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Gotcha. --Kazemita1 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bábism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bāb. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Criticism of Richard Dawkins. Since you had some involvement with the Criticism of Richard Dawkins redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JZCL 17:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Abu l-Futuh al-Razi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/abu-l-futuh-al-razi-SIM_0025. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kazemita1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kazemita1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kazemita1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.Alex-h (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You can't be making three reverts every few days and think that just because you don't technically violate 3RR you can avoid sanctions for edit warring. It doesn't work like that. Also, consensus does not need to be unanimous for something to be deemed unreliably-sourced or undue. It doesn't work like that, either. Thanks. El_C 23:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can make out a bit of Persian. I fail to see the point in linking to the letter (whose authenticity I am uncertain of - but I'll take it on faith). There is a saying in English - beggars can't be choosers - and this is particularly so for revolutionary movements. Most revolutionaries ask / attempt to get help from whomever might be willing to offer it (and MEK certainly has hopped between many beds from the 70s to date - willing to get help from anyone opposed to the Shah and subsequently the IRI (leading to a very diverse set of relationships). Did anything come out of these overtures? Apparently not - probably not for lack of MEK willingness to receive funds (from anyone), but rather due to the Soviet Union's collapsing finances in the 80s. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:I respect your viewpoint. What I fail to understand however, is your hesitance in allowing a subsection in the article that collects all these "interactions with the Soviet Unions". I am hoping that you are noticing that I am no longer pushing for the word "Ties to KGB".--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need two sections (Saadati and KGB). As for placing and naming of a single section - there may he scope for discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding assertions that are not verified in the supporting sources, as you did on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. Alex-h (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, which I already warned you about. Please be more careful in the future. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~)).

El_C 00:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C Did you see my comments under the edit warring report?--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that does not respond to you having engaged in edit warring after being warned already. El_C 00:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You realize, those edits were different each time right? --Kazemita1 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in so far as it had the line "A 2005 document published by Human Rights Watch accused MEK leadership" — a partial revert still counts as one. El_C 00:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit by User:Nikoo.Amini, this is the image of the relevant page of the book. It reads:

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states supported a number of Iranian oposition groups, including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq based in Iraq and some royalist opposition figures

I don't know what you mean. Not to be tautological, but justice is justice. I'm not sure what that has to do with you edit warring, even if you are right on the content. The place to convince people you are, indeed, right on the content is on the article talk page. El_C 00:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be sure to add this piece in the talk page. Just watch how people react to simple and plain facts. I mean how much easier does it get. The source is explicit in its assertion. Yet, they respond by group-wise edit warring and then accuse the other party using wiki-lawyering techniques. and YOU fail to see this trend.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge it in this case, but I'm not sure about a trend. That's because I'm not that familiar with article's editing history to tell one way or another. El_C 00:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the editing page restriction now enforced on the article. I'll give you a chance to self-revert, so that sanctions can be avoided, in this instance. Basically, there's to be no more edit warring of any kind on the article. That said, please note that if I or another admin finds that the objection to your addition lacks merit, that addition may be reintroduced, eventually. But for now, please try to work on getting consensus for it, as that threshold has become mandatory. El_C 17:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:El_C I went ahead and reverted my changes along with those of others that were made after the article was opened. I am left with one question, however. How come you did not leave this message on Alex-h's talk pages, even though he made reverts (1&2) on the article (albeit without pressing the revert button). Please, realize that I am not trying to question your authority or hurt your ego. This is just an honest question for my own clarification.--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was not made aware of that. And now that I am, I can't tell that these are reverts. What version/s are these reverting? Also, BLP-invoked edits are exempt from the restriction — though I did make it clear to the user that they need to better establish their BLP claim before they can invoke it again. El_C 17:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning about adhering new editing restrictions

Do you not understand that you can't revert back in an addition that was already reverted out? You need to gain consensus for it first. Please self-revert. El_C 00:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was in the article already and they initiated the removal. Fixed now.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. Before continuing to make edits that involve this topic, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Your addition to People's Mujahedin of Iran has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Sorry but the document is marked as "Copyright ©2008" and we can't host it here unaltered. It's hosed on the CIA website but they don't own the journal, which is copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does "per RSN" mean? Because, on the face of it, it seems like a violation of the general sanctions that the article is subject to, again. El_C 16:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:I only added material from one source, i.e. Jamestown Foundation. Stefka's reason for removing that source was that the source (Jamestown Foundation) is being discussed in RSN. I simply went and looked at that discussion. I saw the majority of contributor (2 out of 3) are saying it is usable. I therefore saw no more excuses left. I also stated this in the talk page before editing the article. Please, let me know if I am wrong--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had you seen The Four Deuces's last comment at RSN about the source? I also included a TP discussion where I raised other concerns beyond the reliability of the source (such as some of the text being repeated elsewhere in the article). These concerns were all just included today, and you had not addressed them, but re-reverted nonetheless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User "The Four Duces" was the only person (out of the 3) against using the source in the article from the beginning of the RSN discussion. Thus he had been counted when I was making the edit. Your comment about "The text being repeated elsewhere" is baseless as the text is not repeated and you could not point to anywhere in the article where killing of Iraqi Shia, Kurds and Turkmens by MEK is mentioned. So again, I see no substantive objection regarding using the Jamestown Foundation material.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the reliability of the source (which was still under debate), User "The Four Duces" made the following observation:

The disputed edit is ""According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of Jamestown Foundation, MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." That's awkward phrasing since the claim is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. It happens to be true, so mentioning the source in text is wrong. The full sentence in the source says: "The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." It seems therefore that the remarks are taken out of context. MEK has killed civilians as collateral damage. That's a fact. Different observers may find that to be acceptable or unacceptable. After all, civilians are killed in most wars and revolutions. You need a source that explains the general opinion of their actions, which this source does not do.

Taking the source's remarks out of contexts seems like a legitimate concern. Moreover, on the article's Talk Page, I also raised the concern that some of the text you included was being repeated elsewhere in the article. This is the text you included:

• "Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 . MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule."

And this is where it's repeated in the article:

• "the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."
• "MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."
• "it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.
• "siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"
• "so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"
• "they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"
• "...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"
• "assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"
• "...collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists”"

All in all, these concerns were made the same day that you re-reverted. You had previously been warned multiple times not to do this anymore, and that if you continued this behaviour it would lead to sanctions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:That is quite a gymnastics. However, there is still no mention of Kurds or Turkmens or brutality of MEK the way the new source explained.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to say — whatever point you're trying to advance, it is not easy to parse. El_C 02:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the detail of what I am trying to say. I used Jamestown source in my last edit on the article to add 4 pieces of text. One out of those 4 pieces was disputed by Stefka to have been repeated in the article already. Well, he is partially right about that last piece. There are mentions of MEK killing Shias alongside Saddam Hussain in the article (although he is yet to prove his claim about Kurds, Turkmens and MEK's brutality). Nevertheless, for the other 3 he said he is waiting for the RSN discussion to be over (which was over). So even if you were to accept his arguments above, there are still 3 more pieces from Jamestown source that are no longer disputed.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out my objections on the article's Talk page. The idea was to have a debate about this, not only based on the majority vote at WP:RSN, but also on the substance of the objections (such as the one presented by User:The Four Duces). You skipped all that an just re-reverted, even after numerous previous warnings to discuss things before re-reverting (for instance, I have been discussing the inclusion of some text that is backed by RSs on the article's TP since June!). Even then, admin Diannaa removed your edits as they were copy-right violations, so there was no need to rush into edit-warring when we could have discussed things properly and calmly first (I repeat, something that had been explained to you in the past numerous times). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you drop the soapbox talk and stick to concerns I have raised? You unloaded a large amount of text here, yet there was no mention of MEK's brutaility, nor any work about killing of Kurds and Turkmens.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions

You don't get to decide —and act upon— on your own that an objection isn't substantive. You need to ask for clarification and get confirmation about that from an admin who is willing to enforce the general sanctions applied to the article. You have made too many missteps already when it comes to that article. As a result, you are now restricted from making any edits to the People's Mujahedin of Iran‎ (not including the article talk page) for 2 weeks. Please keep in mind that a response to the next violation will be much more severe. Thank you. El_C 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"[El_C telling Stefka]: Without having looked into any of that: if you're confident your objection is substantive, then, yes [remove them]."

"[El_C after being asked to intervene]: Sorry, but I'm not able to evaluate how substantive objection/s (and arguments overall)" Kazemita1 (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONUS, longstanding text is not viewed on par with new text being introduced. El_C 02:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An answer to my question is requested here. Ypatch (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a report involving your at WP:AE. Ypatch (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring on an IRANPOL article. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~)).

El_C 21:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ——SN54129 17:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure you are not closely monitoring the edits/discussions. If you did you would know that the version of the article I am trying to keep is not my preferred version; it is the version editors from the other side of the isle proposed and I am doing my best to prevent another round of edit-warring. There are currently two admins watching this article, so "Forget it".--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Barca (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. You are still exhibiting problematic behaviour with respect to the MEK article. You are being too bold, restoring text that you have reverted in the past, despite objections. Inserting and reinserting such text, even as a compromise, is a problem. So, you need to be less bold and more cautious with respect to edits to the article's mainspace. Instead, use the article's talk page to ensure your changes enjoy consensus — if they do not, simply do not submit them until the matter is resolved. Please note that further issues relating to this article may result in more severe sanctions, up to and including an article ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~)).

El_C 17:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: @El C:

The Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . . "

point being: RoySmith, ruled a verdict (put me on probation) and then changed it (to death sentence). That is too big of a change to say the least. Besides, the the proportionality law tells us:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

and finally

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.

point being: One should at least check the IPs.

p.s. I understand that Wikipedia is not run based on US constitution, but there is some merits in the above statements that are worth taking into consideration.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1, it would probably be better if you were to restrict yourself to an unblock request — and one which invokes Wikipedia policy rather than US law. El_C 18:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of my business I know, but I think an indef for logged-out editing—first offence, etc—is a little harsh, particularly as (using semi-protection) it's so easilly prevented. ——SN54129 18:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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).

Kazemita1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

as stated above. Kazemita1 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2020 (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.

The US Constitution is not binding on private entities like Wikipedia, who can determine who uses their services as they see fit. Just as you can restrict what people say and do in your residence, so can Wikipedia. Any unblock request should be based in Wikipedia policy. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request 2

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).

Kazemita1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For the records, I admit it was inappropriate for me to edit using IPs while on block. However, I believe the new (indefinite) block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I am being blocked indefinitely for the edits made by two IPs as stated in the SPI archives here. Both these IPs tried to remove a part of text from the article (1 & 2). On the face of it, it looks as disruption specially when it is against the will of some users, but here is the catch. The article in question is under Wiki sanctions as stated here. Which means, if a content had been opposed by a user, one cannot put it back without consensus. The content that those IPs were removing had been removed at least once by another user besides me. As such it was unlawful for Ypatch and Stefka to restore the content without convincing all users. In other words, the IPs were not doing anything wrong removing the previously opposed piece to begin with. and I am not going to discuss other matters such as disproportionate penalty (as confirmed by another admin). In the end, I ask that admin:El_C be consulted in this matter as he was moderating the page during the last couple of months. Kazemita1 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having secured wide latitude from the blocking admin to attend to this matter, I'm amending the block to three months, starting now. El_C 06:53, 19 January 2020 (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.

Kazemita1, block evasion is a pretty serious violation, although I agree with SN54129 (who is not an admin, btw) that an indef might be too harsh of a response for an established user. But it is within standard parameters nonetheless. And you have been editing rather recklessly as of late, so I think you would need to provide assurances that you will moderate this behaviour in some pretty dramatic ways. Even if you're unblocked, I'm not sure there's still a place for someone who block evades at the MEK article, after already having incurred multiple sanctions there. At most, I could see limiting you to the article talk page. But I'm getting ahead of myself. First, you need to be a lot more introspective, I think, which your current unblock requests very much lack. El_C 21:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:I hereby assure you that I will not be editing the People's Mojahedeen of Iran's article for one year, neither thru my Wiki account nor an IP. As you mentioned, I might contribute to the talk page. You know what, I just changed my mind. Please, block me for a period of one year. I do need that break from Wiki to cool-off my head. I think that helps a lot with my editing style that you complained about above.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Kazemita. Let's hear what the blocking admin, RoySmith, has to say about altering the block down from indefinite in light of the discussions above.

@Alex-h: please don't edit war with a user on their user talk page. That is inappropriate and may be subject to sanctions. El_C 09:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But instead RoySmith revokes talk page access. Qu'est-ce qu'on pas ecrit...?! ——SN54129 14:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a no from RoySmith, who also disabled talk page access for some reason. Colour me confused. El_C 14:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I'm just seeing a user who's disruptive. The whole thing above about the Double Jeopardy Clause was absurd. We're here to write an encyclopedia. I honestly don't see that Kazemita1 is contributing to that. And, given their long block history, I don't have any confidence that this will change. However, if your judgement is that they will become a productive contributor, I would have no objection if you unblock them. Also pinging Cabayi who convinced me to block them in the first place. The block was for socking, and Cabayi is better versed in the nuances of sock-blocking policy than I am. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roy. I appreciate your confidence. I'll give it some further thought. But I am going to restore talk page access immediately. El_C 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Roy's first closure of the SPI dealt with protecting the article but left the issue of Kazemita1's block evasion unaddressed. Not double jeopardy but the appeal of an unduly lenient sentence.
• The unblock request makes the most cursory reference to editing "using IPs while on block". It's block evasion. The request is supposed to acknowledge that, and not just in passing before moving on to complaints about other users.
• If blocks are to mean anything then a block of at least a month from the expiry of the 2 week block would be, in my opinion, the minimum required.
• The difference between a one month block and an indef block with the option of the standard offer, for a repeatedly and increasingly disruptive editor, isn't that big. That's my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby acknowledge that it was most inappropriate of me evading the block. As an example of constructive contributions to the encyclopedia project (in reference to Roy's comment), I ask you to take a look at the articles I have created in the English Wiki. Life was MUCH better before politics got in the middle. It is for this reason, that I voluntarily asked for a long block to cool things off.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the unblock request template, I've now amended the indefinite block to one with a 3-month duration. Starting now. El_C 06:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Guardian Analytics Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editor. The world is struggling to stay safe from the harms of a some tens of nano-meters sized virus. I wish you and your dear ones full safety from the dangers of this unilateral love! Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. - MA Javadi (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider responding at WP:AN3#User:Kazemita1 reported by User:MA Javadi (Result: ). Another block is possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi greetings,

I have been looking for update and expansion support for 2 following articles in draft namespace

• Draft:Aurat (word) (article to cover grammar and linguistic part)

and

• Draft:Aurat (article to cover cultural women)

Please do have a look at the article, do update, expand, correct inaccuracies, suggest and discuss better article titles

Looking forward to your kind support.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:RoySmith: You blocked me indefinitely due to "block evasion". How can it possibly be block evasion when I was not even under block at the time (to have to use IP instead of my account) ?.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cc:User:El_CKazemita1 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with this incident. But the block appears to have invoked WP:SOCK rather than WP:EVADE. El_C 09:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cc:User:Vanamonde93. --Kazemita1 (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have much to add here either; the behavioral evidence is not blindingly obvious, but neither is it weak enough for me to contest the decision of an SPI clerk. RoySmith, I do wonder why you didn't ask a CU to check for sleepers and/or evidence of logged out editing; the IP and the account can't be linked by the CU, but there's enough evidence here to justify a check, surely. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I didn't ask for CU because 1) the behavioral aspects seemed sufficient, and 2) with only IP listed, there didn't seem like anything to CU against, nor enough evidence to justify a CU request. @Cabayi: who was involved in this case earlier. If another admin believes my block was incorrect, I have no objection to being reversed. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I don't know that your block was incorrect, but I wonder if a check for logged out editing could make it a block we are more certain about. I am not going to reverse it of my own accord. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A check wouldn't hurt. May as well. El_C 16:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser won't confirm a named account to an IP.

I believe the mention of block evasion in the SPI archive was a genuine mistake, it should have said sockpuppetry as there is evidence of Kazemita1 breaching the "it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors" clause. Stefka Bulgaria clearly saw it that way. Spinningspark's reply doesn't show any sign that it would have been any different if the questions had come from the same editor or not.

Kazemita1's complaint about being called a block evader may be valid but offers no comment on the point of using an IP so soon after the expiry of a sizeable block for the same issue. I must echo Vanamonde, I am not going to reverse it of my own accord. Cabayi (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Thanks for the detailed response. To be clear, I am not asking for a CU to connect the IP and account: I am aware that is impossible. However, I have filed or otherwise participated in SPIs where CUs confirmed that an editor had seemingly engaged in logged-out editing to avoid scrutiny; that is the sort of check I was hoping for here, because it could make this situation more clear-cut. However, this is not something I'm willing to make a fuss about. Kazemita, your next options, so far as I can tell, would be to file an unblock request stating why you feel this block is incorrect, or to accept your block and appeal it at some future date. Speaking for myself, I would not accept an unblock request right now based on the information presented so far. However, I will leave any request for another administrator to consider. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanamonde93. Thank you for following up on this. Regarding "appeal it at some future date" when do you think is a good time? I mean I am blocked indefinitely and RoySmith might take my permission to edit my own talk page (he has done that before).Kazemita1 (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your right of appeal is a protected right. Please feel free to expand and clarify. El_C 04:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a lot on the content of your appeal; are you acknowledging that you violated WP:SOCK, or do you still say you are innocent? If you did sock, you need to wait six months at a minimum. If not, and you're saying the block is incorrect, then you can appeal immediately. In either case, you would have to convince the reviewing administrator of what you are saying, and I cannot help you with that. ElC is correct in saying you always have the ability to appeal; if it's not here, it will be through UTRS. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: to follow up on your earlier question about why I didn't endorse for CU, I enquired off-wiki of a CU (after you posted your question) about how such an endorsement would have been received. The response was essentially that answering, "Without tying it to a specific IP, is there evidence of IP socking in general?" might technically be possible under CU policy. However, most CUs would probably push back on such a request. And, in this case, where it's obvious which IP we're talking about, it is unlikely any CU would have accepted it. As for writing "block evasion" instead of "socking" in the text of the SPI, I accept that I might have made an error there. To be honest, once I convinced myself that the IP was indeed the same person as Kazemita1, I didn't invest a whole lot of effort to draw the distinction between socking and block evasion, since the end-result is the same. And, I'll just state again for the record, any admin who feels I was incorrect in blocking, I have no objection to the block being lifted. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @RoySmith: Thanks for confirming that it was a legitimate query, though I can understand the concern when a specific IP is involved. Based on the information currently available, I have no intention of lifting this block, and I will be leaving any unblock requests to someone else. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Thanks for following up, Roy. El_C 18:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

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).

Kazemita1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked indefinitely for this edit where I left a message on an admin webpage while logged out. I did so, because I was using my cell phone at the time. My Wikipedia account password is a relatively long and random string generated by a password saving software named "KeePass" which only runs on my PC (and not on my cell phone). As a result, when trying to ask for further elaboration from that admin, I edited his page using IP (rather than my account). At the time, I did not think that would be a punishable action as I was not really editing an article (to say bypass 3RR). Therefore, since I was not at my PC I just inquired the admin on his page using my IP. I now know I was not supposed to do that. Because, things should be clear in the eyes of all editors and one should not edit in disguise. Per the advice of admin:Vanamonde above, I waited 6 months and opened this unblock request. I appreciate your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazemita1 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that you are clearly lying not being fully truthful in this unblock request, no. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC) (modified, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2021 (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.

• Please see this comment on my talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra: I saw Alex-h's post on your talk-page. I am not going to comment on his intentions nor am I going to discuss his history of calling me names and harassing me by posting unwanted comments on my talk page (which lead to receiving warnings by admins). Just to address the concerns mentioned, I simply was not going to out myself in the second edit by introducing myself as the account holder of the previous IP. It is that simple. If I had any intension of influencing the RfC I would have done so by using IP/socks to comment in the RfC discussion itself (not on the admin's page after he had concluded it). But I did not commit such a thing. Kazemita1 (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC) User:Boing! said Zebedee@. I was blocked for socking. So, the punishable act was the use of IP. Also, please, give people time to defend themselves before passing judgement and calling them liars. Kazemita1 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for editing as an IP and then dishonestly pretending it wasn't you. That is what you need to address in any new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boing! said Zebedee@I am not defending my actions; neither using IP nor trying to avoid outing myself. (or as you call it "dishonestly pretending it was not me".) No matter how you look at it, there is element of dishonesty in any act of socking. And it was for that reason that I waited double my previous block time to open this unblock request. Please, note that Vanamonde's suggestion in the above section about the wait period before appealing was indeed considering the whole situation as he was aware of the matter in full.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wait period has got nothing to do with it. However long you wait, you will not be unblocked if you do not then fully address the actions that led to your block. You need to make a new unblock request in which you honestly address the entirety of your actions, and someone else will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Deepfriedokra@ Per Zedbee's advice, I need to open a new unblock request in which I should explain a broader set of events that led to my block. Does that mean we should close this request first?Kazemita1 (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boing! said Zebedee@Does that mean we should close this request first?Kazemita1 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This request already is closed - I closed it by declining it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from this subsequent discussion, I have modified my decline reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tafsir al-Qummi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tafsir al-Qummi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kazemita1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I recently submitted an OTRS request, but was told that I need to write on my own talk page instead. I was blocked indefinitely for this edit where I left a message on an admin webpage while logged out. I did so, because I was using my cell phone at the time. My Wikipedia account password is a relatively long and random string generated by a password saving software named "KeePass" which only runs on my PC (and not on my cell phone). That was my first mistake. My second mistake was when trying to ask for further elaboration from that same admin. This time, I was logged in and pretended that I am a different entity than the IP that had left the earlier message on the admin's talk page, mainly not to out myself. However, this was interpreted as dishonesty and I was soon reported and blocked indefinitely due to my previous block evasion history. This happened 3 years ago. The collection of events that lead to this block (and several blocks prior to the last one) was mainly due to my activity in an article titled "People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". Soon after my indefinite block, several other users involved in that article (from all sides) were put under sanction. I am therefore writing to ask for the same "plea bargain". When I look back, I created and contributed to many other informative articles on Wikipedia. I therefore, think I can continue my activity with a new approach. I appreciate your consideration.

Accept reason:

Unblocking with TBANs from Israel-Palestine and Iranian politics, in addition to a 1RR restriction,per discussion with RoySmith and . Vanamonde93. Welcome back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk)

@RoySmith: OK to unblock with a WP:TBAN on People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I see I blocked them, but I don't remember any of the details. Looking through some notes, there's some questions that I'll need to research off-wiki, so give me a little time to work on that. RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No hurry -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra I ran some checks and don't see any evidence of current socking. He has had some blocks on fawiki in the past, but isn't currently blocked there and it sounds like they've toned down their editing style compared to earlier. So, I'll leave it up to you, but from what I can see, I don't have any objection. RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith and Deepfriedokra: Apologies for butting in, but may I suggest unblocking with a TBAN from the entire CT? I do believe Kazemita can return to contributing constructively, but I'd rather they do so in areas where they have not previously demonstrated a battleground mentality. Speaking here as an admin who was very active in IRANPOL enforcement at the time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular unblock reviewer but without any other stake in this unblock request, I concur that a TBAN on Wikipedia:Contentious topics is a reasonable minimum requirement here, possibly in addition to a TBAN on Iran, broadly construed. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. All CTOP? OK. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really feel all CTOPs are needed, @Yamla:? I can't recall another user with restrictions so tight; I was suggesting IRANPOL only, though on reflection I might add PIA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would not leave much . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My original thought was Iranian politics, broadly construed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that IRANPOL may not be broad enough. I'd not like to see Kazemita1 editing 2023 Israel–Hamas war for example, due specifically to the Iran–Israel proxy conflict and to a lesser extent, Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. If the 2023 Israel–Hamas war would unambiguously be included in IRANPOL, I'm okay with the restriction being just IRANPOL. Vanamonde93, you specifically have all the information I have and have significantly more familiarity with IRANPOL than I do, so everyone reading this discussion should put much more weight on your opinion than on mine. --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insights. I think that makes a TBAN on PIA, including/especially Arab-Israeli conflict de rigueur.. And if that is not clear/broad enough along with TBAN IRANPOL, any "Iran-X' conflict.. Or any "X-Israel" conflict. These should be broadly construed so as to prohibit contentious/disruptive editing in any loop-hole we've left uncovered. That's the problem with implementing TBANs.-- gaps. Hmm, how 'bout a general WP:1RR restriction? The intent is too keep off-Wiki conflicts, agendas and WP:POV pushing from disrupting Wikipedia. And showing a clear understanding of WP:BRD and WP:DR. That would be nice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Yamla that Kazemita needs to stay away from the Israel-Hamas war, for instance. Deepfriedokra, if you mean that you'd be willing to unblock with TBANs from Israel-Palestine and Iranian politics, in addition to a 1RR restriction, I would be entirely fine with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will proceed with unblocking -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]