Account closed. User has created new account under WP:Clean start and will not be editing from this one
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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Orartu (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

I had to create that account to do some useful contributions in wikipedia, because with User:Orartu account my time has been wasted in nonesense discussions, I had forgotten to inform one of the admins about it.I didn't abuse that account.--Orartu (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Orartu (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

My account is blocked because of abusing multiple accounts, but I had created other account according to Legitimate uses,Privacy, I thought I had done according to rules, because my ulternate account is not included Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts Orartu (talk) 5:19 am, Today (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

Orartu appears to have intended to create a clean start account. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

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. TNXMan 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. TNXMan 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 GejasiEdit


The article Chilla Gejasi has been proposed for deletion 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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!Edit

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)