User talk:Refdoc

/archive1 /archive2 /archive3 messing about and testing

Iranian opposition group site

I am glad you finally locked the page about Mojahedin-e Khalq because regime was misusing it as its mouthpiece on an encyclopedia which people take seriously. I was hoping that you could read both the discussion board and the history section of the page and you will see that arguments that me and my friend made, and some other people too, were factual (by which I mean we quoted facts which can be researched on the internet), while the regime-affiliated people who changed the page, at one point even wrote "I HATE YOUR GROUP". That obviously shows that he (or they) have serious POV. In responce to facts we presented, they accused me and my friend of being terrorists (on the basis that I live in France!). I hope you can write me back a message, but I also would like to ask you to revert the page to the unbiased version, which at the minimum call the group by the name they call themselves, PMOI, (You know its on the header of their statements, whereas they never use the term MKO). I say this because I don't like to see facts and history re-written and also because I wanted to show my friends the usefulness of Wikipedia (at present they would sautomatically reject it as a biased site, not a factual one). One last point is that you will notice, I put a lot of effort in writing a lot on the page "Maryam Rajavi", with plenty of facts, but the regime guy has come there aswell and has changed that too. If you just take a look at his version you will see that it is completely biased and to be honest, full of lies. One can tell that he has animosity towards the Iranian opposition group and can sense he is regime-affiliated. --RezaKia 06:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Happy Nowrooz

agha Happy Nowroon!--Sina 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Happy Nowruz. May the New Year bring you abundant progress and success.--Zereshk 18:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

80.227.56.42 changing your comments?

Were you aware that 80.227.56.42 changed your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? In this edit he replaces your references to "JDK" with "TDC". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That was me, I don't know who JDK is and I'm sure Refdoc can only have been referring to TDC. Presumed to be a typo so I changed it. —Christiaan 14:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VfD request on The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"

Have you referenced this VfD request on the main VfD page? If you didn't please do so quickly, otherwise, the page will be there for a while... See [[1]]. This is very important. --Edcolins 22:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

3RR rule

I think you are pulling the trigger on this rule a bit fast. I didn't realize this had been elevated from guideline to rule and I had already commented on the talk page that I was taking a break from editing the article. I apply blocks very sparingly, myself, and usually limit myself to warning people which works just fine. Daniel Quinlan 01:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I'd gotten Quinlan's explanation above, and unblocked because of it. I thought I'd left you a note. My bad. Sorry. Snowspinner 13:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Back from (semi-enforced) wikibreak

Hi Refdoc, and a belated Happy Naw Ruz to you.

Saw your comment re Martin2000, thanks for letting me know. Haven't had net access for the last three weeks, since I moved here. Only had dial-up, and there was something wrong with my modem-driver too, so I could only use email since 6 March. I just installed my new broad-band service today, so I'm back now.

Re your comments on our mini fracas - well, I don't bear grudges, and as I think I said somewhere, the fact that the Baha'i editing was getting me to the point where I wanted to argue with you was one of the things that decided me it was time for a break. I like to be a reasonable editor, and I respect those who also listen to other people on these pages. You strike me as that kind of person, and that's one reason why I didn't want to find myself shouting at you, while also trying to keep my cool with the less-reasonable people who had gotten involved with those Baha'i pages. PaulHammond 16:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Martin + stuff

Am on holiday at the moment hence my lack of activity on the Baha'i wiki pages. When I get back I'll help with the RFC etc. Fully support you though. 10 min time limit on this comp though :( -- Tomhab 19:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martin2000 page, what exactly is the distinction between "certifying" and "endorsing" of the summary? Despite my comments and objections to this person's behavior, I really haven't edited on those pages much, nor made a detailed study of what has happened on them in the past. Just a quick look at the existing commments and edit histories though is quite revealing. ~ Achilles 10:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went to add my name to the "endorse" list, but noticed the comment: If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. -- Technically I did try and fail to resolve part of the disputes, (about the photo) though without much hope of an actual immediate resolution, just an adding of my own opinions. It is probably best that I "certify", despite not being anywhere near as involved as most of the others seem to have been. ~ Achilles 11:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IP range block

Regarding your recent comment on Talk:Vilnius. While I agree that an indefinite block in this case may be a mistake (because of the dynamic IP assignment), can you explain why do you think that a range block would be inappropriate ? The vandal in question is the only user using the 85.206.192.0/22 range. Lysy 06:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For anyone who participated in the earlier discussion there it is obvious that the edits are by the same person. Please, do not step in the middle with your judgement. Take your time to read the history and compare all the edits, then you'll realize what was going on. I'm sure that any constructive advice on how to handle this situation would be appreciated. Lysy 08:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the addresses after seeking guidance from Jiang as to the clarifications of the IP address.

I wrote on his talk page:

How do you deal with a problem user with a Range IP?

An anon user has been using ethnic slurs against Halibutt at Talk:Vilnius. The anon was repeatedly warned that he would be blocked if he continued his behavior. However, he is using the 85.206 range and therefore can only be blocked for 15 minutes. I have blocked him for 15 minutes, and will do so again when/if he uses another ethnic slur. At some point, if not already, that's going to be laughable. Is there not some stronger action that can be taken? Please advise. -JCarriker 14:28, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

He responded on my talk page:

Where does it say the 85.206 range can only be blocked for 15 minutes? It's not part of the AOL or NTL ranges. It seems this guy has a dynamic IP. Given that all of these IP edits are restricted to vandalize a single page (meaning same user), I wouldn't hesitate to hand down a longer block. --Jiang 01:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given this vandals history to not only use ethnic slurs and to advocate viloence, e.g. "slaves- to gas chambers", I did not hesitate to block him indefinitely when he appeared again. If the information that I used to reach this information was flawed I welcome the opportunity to rectify the situation and any advice you can offer will be appreciated. Please note that his situation was persued cautiously and with a great deal of dialogue between the regular users and the two admins who responded to the situation; therefore I must protest your accusation of "abuse of admin powers", as there was no deliberate effort to violate wikipedia's guidelines. -JCarriker 22:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I apolgize for my brevity in this post but I haven't much time to respond. Now, as I said your asistance is welcome but I have three brief points:

1. I responded with 15 minute blocks, I sought clarification and the information I recieved was wrong.

Pardon my intrusion here, I have no intention to extend this discussion that seems to have ended, but I have to diagree - the advice from Jiang was correct and perfectly valid. Only not the whole range 85.206.0.0/16 should be blocked but 85.206.192.0/22 with a shorter netmask. Any comments that this range belongs to the "largest ISP" are ireelevant, given that it is used by a single user only and only in order to abuse english wikipedia. Does a block affect other language wikipedias ? In spite of what Refdoc claims, temporary blocking 85.206.192.0/22 would be the correct action to be taken. Hopefully this is over now. Just my 3 cents. No response needed :-) Lysy 06:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. I will condede blocking a ISP permanently rather than a user name permanently was poor judgement on mypart. However if you check, the block logs you will notice many users who have been blocked indefinitely for being sockpuppets ect., this may mean that this incident is not a aberation but the symptom of a larger and instittuional problem.

3. In my dialect "abuse of power" always implies an intentional act; e.g therefore from that view- blocking you because I oppose you changing spellings from color to colour is an abuse of power. My dialect, the Midland South of American English, is widely spoken and I think you should be aware of the ramificatrions of using can be interpreted. Cheers! -JCarriker 23:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cetainly, we're on the same team, likewise I have made a mental note of your input about your own dialect for future reference. Cheers! -JCarriker 20:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks for your effort in mediation. Frankly it's very tiring to be engaged in such a long battle, and I do want to have a good and solution which is acceptable to everyone. But I'm a bit pessimistic. — Instantnood 10:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Vanity" and CSD

"Vanity" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. If a page makes any plausible claims to notability, you should take it to Vfd. Kappa 00:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked IP for User:Naturenet

I'm pleased to report the block is now lifted. Thanks very much for your prompt response. I hope I have not inadvertently impeded your sterling work in keeping Wikipedia safe and clean. Keep up the good work. Naturenet 19:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vilnius

Thanks for keeping an eye on Vilnius article and for your attempt to solve the crisis there. As you seem to be interested in working on the content of the article itself, you might want to have a look at our current discussion at User_talk:Lysy/History of Vilnius which is less nervous and hopefully more fruitful. Lysy 16:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Petjka Chuječny - Propizdonsul" it's the signature of "Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus" turned into Russian obscenity by our multiple-personalities guy. Should be blanked. You could not know this, but I think you're feeding the troll now. Lysy 08:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I admire you for trying to talk reason to our troll, but I am afraid you are wasting your time. It has been going for several weeks now and the only 'progress' I see is the troll expantion on other articles from my watchlist. I believe a long range ban is the only way to prevent us from wasting more time unvandalising the articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's too early to unblock at that moment. A while more shouldn't do much harm, and I'm not that optimistic even in spite of your success in eventually getting him to start discussing thing (bravo!). Ignore my comments about the ip blocks for now, I attempted to induce some pressure to move things into your direction. Maybe you could persuade him to register ? All this pretending he's different persons is quite annoying (and against WP rules I think and certainly not a proof of sincere attitude). I sense he would like to register, maybe he just needs some guidance, but probably would not take it from me as he thinks I'm one of the local Polish nationalists in Lithuania or something similar. Maybe you could try ? I'd only be afraid of creating more false personalities this way ... Lysy 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am rather satisfied with progress regarding Vilnius article, it seems that many disputed points are solved. Of course dealing with anonymous trols is difficult, but that's another issue.Dirgela 19:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Baiting

What are you referring to? I can't say I understand your comment, could you be more specific?

Cheers. Halibutt 07:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I were you I wouldn't unblock the article as of yet. But we could try.

However, my patience has ended and it would take only one insult more for me to request that user to be permanently blocked. So far he insulted seriously and on several occasions both me, my country, my nation, my part of Europe, my language and even my ethnic sub-group. This, together with his conduct, makes me think that his blocking would be quite easy - be it by any of the admins or by ArbCom. One insult/vandalism/revert more and I'm going to ask for arbitration and blocking. Halibutt 19:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Turkey

Hello, welcome to wikipedia, I like to have your explanation on why you removed sme material? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide Denial

Hi, I noticed some of your edits to Turkey and thought I'd invite you to look over a few links: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Fadix vs User:Coolcat, User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat, and my talk page. Thanks for your time. — Davenbelle 22:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; here are a few other handy links: User:Fadix/Evidence, User:Blankfaze/CoolcatDAO. — Davenbelle 22:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Curiosity about name of user you banned

You stated that the name of "Dubistdas Letztearschloch" was "extremely offensive" in German in the block log when you blocked that apparent sockpuppet of some guy or other, and this inquiring mind wants to know what it means. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

Just asking about this edit which removes the stub tagging from Mullá Yusif-i-Ardibili - a relatively minor character in Babism. I left stub on because its quite short and I've not yet added more detail on him. Is my understanding of a stub incorrect? I notice the same user's contributions are basically removing lots of stub templates. Should I just revert this one? -- Tomhab 11:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can't tell if you've been online and seen this but don't worry - someone just came along and reverted it all anyway. Cheers and sorry :) -- 23:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editing personal pages

Hi, I notice that many admins are very intent on preventing changes in user's personal pages. On numerous occasions, when I have tried to change my personal page, I will click back a few seconds later to find that an administrator has quite promptly reverted. When I have asked why, they say it is in order to preserve the page (a circular response). I find this quite irritating. I have had several usernames on wikipedia, and having gotten frustrated with tough personal attacks in edit wars, and I have wanted to change my username on several occasions. I have never been able to do so, so rather than change my username, which is now impossible, I get a new one, and then get attacked for having had so many usernames in the past. On several occasions, my username has been banned permanently before I've ever been able to use it, as was the case with Jesus Christ, which is banned apparently on the basis of its sullying the immortal reputation of our lord and savior Jesus Christ. Several of my usernames have been labeled "sockpuppets" and banned on that basis before I ever got to use them, on account of my having other usernames (which I would like to delete, but there is of course no mechanism for deleting a username, the usernames must remain). My point is, I would like the opportunity to delete the personal pages of these dead users, on account of their being dead and allowing me to get a fresh start. I don't think it is any business of administrators to involve themselves with my own personal pages, all the time they spend engaging in edit wars, banning other users, and changing personal pages could be better spent on editing articles. So I respectfully ask you to grant me permission to delete my dead userpages, so that I can have a fresh start: Apollomelos2, Apollomelos3, 5440orFight, and Jesus H. Christ III. Thank you. BlasphemousBlasphemous

I have blocked you indefinetely for obvious reasons. Refdoc 00:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Blocking users

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that you don't have to prefix "User:" to whoever you're blocking (don't block "User:Frazzydee", block "Frazzydee"). If you check Special:Log/block, you'll see that doing so blocks "User:User:Frazzydee". Don't worry, I'm pretty sure it just translates User:User:Frazzydee into User:Frazzydee, but not prefixing User: will save you some keystrokes anyways :) (it'll also look better in the logs). -Frazzydee|✍ 00:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the User:Frazzydee thing was just an example...please don't actually block it, it's my account :P -Frazzydee|✍ 00:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Come to you as very capable of expressing a neutral view. Could you read this:

Baha'is use what they call a representative democratic voting system which is split into 3 stages:

• The Baha'i masses vote for a regional delegate.
• Regional delegates votes for a few National delegates.
• The National delegates in turn vote for a worldwide body.

However, nominations, campaigning and affecting a delegates vote are all strictly prohibited. Although discussion is allowed, delegates are not allowed to disclose their preference to others. As such, a Baha'i on the lowest tier cannot vote for a delegate on the condition he votes a certain way (which is present in most representive democrasies) as this is against the spirit of the election. No canvasing is allowed as this may disadvantage people. Delegate weighting is not performed (so a country such as China has the same voting power as Spain dispite being 200 times bigger - I'm not certain about smaller countries such as Luxembourg or Monaco).

One editor has questioned whether the term Representative democracy is misleading since, in effect, the lowest tier can put no direct vote to who gets voted in (assuming they don't get voted to a delegate level). If it is misleading, is the term Democratic also misleading?

The guy has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the Baha'is for some reason (24.6.117.96 contribs and 67.188.7.127 contribs), but he's toned himself down somewhat and I'd appreciate a comment from yourself. This isn't so important that it needs a formal RFC. Although I have seen criticisms of the election process this complaint is a new one to me. See Talk:Bahá'í Faith for any other details that you'll need. -- Tomhab 14:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just checking on some spellings... You put it as:

• Councilar-republican

but did you mean:

• Councilor-republican
• Counselor-republican

Or were you right first time...? Sounds really stupid but may as well get it right :) -- Tomhab 01:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christian Flight

Hello Refdoc, I've started a new article that is called Christian Flight. It talks about the migration of the Christian people around the world. I thought that you might find this article quite interesting, because I've noticed your contribution to a lot of Christian related articles. Regards, --Gramaic 00:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Iranian opposition group site

I am glad you finally locked the page about Mojahedin-e Khalq because regime was misusing it as its mouthpiece on an encyclopedia which people take seriously. I was hoping that you could read both the discussion board and the history section of the page and you will see that arguments that me and my friend made, and some other people too, were factual (by which I mean we quoted facts which can be researched on the internet), while the regime-affiliated people who changed the page, at one point even wrote "I HATE YOUR GROUP". That obviously shows that he (or they) have serious POV. In responce to facts we presented, they accused me and my friend of being terrorists (on the basis that I live in France!). I hope you can write me back a message, but I also would like to ask you to revert the page to the unbiased version, which at the minimum call the group by the name they call themselves, PMOI, (You know its on the header of their statements, whereas they never use the term MKO). I say this because I don't like to see facts and history re-written and also because I wanted to show my friends the usefulness of Wikipedia (at present they would sautomatically reject it as a biased site, not a factual one). One last point is that you will notice, I put a lot of effort in writing a lot on the page "Maryam Rajavi", with plenty of facts, but the regime guy has come there aswell and has changed that too. If you just take a look at his version you will see that it is completely biased and to be honest, full of lies. One can tell that he has animosity towards the Iranian opposition group and can sense he is regime-affiliated. --RezaKia 06:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello again

Been a while, but I thought I'd just ask some advice perhaps. Take a look at Bahá'í apologetics. I have been really busy recently and barely on wikipedia but a couple of editors have been really busy which is good. I'm just not sure about the encyclopaedic style and layout etc.

I would be interested in what an experienced person thought of it. The content seems (at a rough look) to be reasonably good, but... an odd topic for wikipedia and an even odder method of writing. -- Tomhab 21:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Hi, would you take care of vandalism from 219.93.174.105 on pages of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Reza Pahlavi II? Do you have any suggestion? Perhaps would you lock those pages? Thanks in advance!--Sina 12:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Spellings Changes

Hi Refdoc, Received your note on spelling changes. I recall correcting some spellings, which involved mainly the name Azerbaijan or Azerbaijani. It appears some mainly Persian users are re using a much less used spelling for Azerbaijan, perhaps due to transliteration habit or on political ground to disguise the continuity of the term for an ethnicity or its geographical region. In this case I noticed few users have spelled stablish form of spelling for "Azerbaijan" as Azarbaijan or Azarebayejan and similar spellings. The current spelling of “Azerbaijan” and “Azerbaijani” and in its abbreviated form “Azeri” are established spellings in English for decades. Although the other spellings are used mostly by Iranian government and Iranian sites but the one backed by major Encyclopaedias seems to be the first version.

As an example I refer you to the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica of Columbia, where it describes “Azerbaijan, region, Iran : http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Azerbaijan

Encyclopaedia Britannica, acknowledging other spellings, yet only the “Azerbaijan” version is used within the articles. http://britannica.com/ebc/article-9011538

(md 09:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC))

Order of St John of Jerusalem

Hello, I noticed your revert of my anglicization of the latin in Knights hospitaller. The reason I anglicized "ordo militae etc" is because their is a bogus order run by a fake german prince that uses the latin name. Since nobody officially uses the latin name besides the bogus order, I thought I should anglicize it to the more common usage which also includes the legitimate "Johannitter" orders in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. I will be changing the latin back to english shortly. Ordrestjean 21:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ordrestjean

I saw that you left a message to this user on their user page. To send a message you should write it on their talk pages.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Ismail I

Hi Refdoc can you please look at the article Ismail I. the user Timbit change it without any reason and discussion. I am anonym (sorry) and I wrote some available source in the talk-page. but the user Timbit beleive that (see the Talkpage):

Syfavids dynasty was a Turkish dynasty and Iran was only a colony from this empire (see talk-Page)

and he write his personal idea in the article without any source and argument. can you look there and (wenn possible) warn ihm. thanks and regard 141.2.247.138 19:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

HTML

Just to let you know that the useful little tool that tidies up HTML in sigs has been disabled temporarily, meaning that talk pages and utility pages all over the project are not displaying properly as a result. Things should be back to normal asap. -- Francs2000 00:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

IP address 71.96.165.158

keeps reverting on the Anthony Kennedy page without stating a reason in spite of talk page discussion, etc., on the issue. It is now more than three times; I invite you to look at the history log and the talk page. Can somebody please take some action?

Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Write onto his talk page, see if s/he engages then. Many anonymous do this thereafter. It does not appear to me as outright reverts, otherwise the 3RR rule would apply and s/he could be banned after the next revert. Having said this, you might want to check whetehr the IP address is an open proxy. many admins kill open proxies on sight. I do. Refdoc 14:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ghorban Tourani

I have removed your clean up tag. If you feel the style needs changing, do so (as you did with the date - which you quite inexplicably americanized). Thanks Refdoc

Thats the whole point of a clean-up tag! When someone spots a poorly written or formatted article but does not have time or the interest to clean it up themselves. Its clearly written like a truncated newspaper obituary, which is not appropriate for wikipedia articles (when this is corrected then the clean-up tag should be removed). The time I took to write this I could have cleaned it up myself, same goes for the time it took you to write the above message. But it was the principle that you removed a clean-up tag for a poorly written article. Don't remove clean-up tags for badly formatted articles please! (Unless of course you clean it up first.) And the reformating of the birth/death dates was to put it in parantheses, as is wikipedia standard, I made it an American format because thats what I'm used to, switch it around if you like--I could care less--just keep the standard form: name (birth date - death date) beyond that do what you like, if it makes you feel better to have a different date format make it a different date format. There is no wikipedia policy on date format as far as I'm aware, American is not inferior to other date formats. --Brentt 09:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Shared ip notice

RE: User talk:62.6.139.10. When you encounter a sharedip, please use {{sharedip|name of organization}} for easier identification. People doing RC patrol do not have time to read each talk page, but such a warning is easily recognizable and will help us in not blocking shared IPs for long periods. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comment on User talk:195.124.114.37

I can't work out which point of view you're endorsing ... *grin* Anyway, whichever, I hope you agree with my opinion that widespread naming changes should be generally made only after soliciting discussion. Thanks, —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I read the version prior to your fixing the indentation. No problem in any case; he's ceased doing it since the last thing he posted on the page. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: 62.6.139.10

Well, of course I know that. But is it too much to *hope* that the vandal will notice it? :p Johnleemk | Talk 17:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that "yes, it's too much to hope" or "yes, it's right to hope"? :-{ Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Trouble

Hi RefDoc,

I see that youre back.

User:Diyako (who is pro-secessionist Kurdish) is running around making trouble on West Azarbaijan and Iran articles that you, me, SoutherComfort, Pouya, Roozbeh, Mani1, Amir, Aytakin, and a bunch of other guys have been working on for the past year.

He constantly engages in edit wars, and makes changes without discussing them.

Im getting tired of this guy pushing his POV nose into all our pages and making trouble.

Please monitor him.--Zereshk 23:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

baba eivallah. Az shomaa ham deegeh ba'eed bood.

If you wish not to get involved in the ethnicity disputes that constantly plague Iranian pages, then please introduce me to an admin who is willing to get involved in disputes involving his own expertise (i.e. Iran).

Do you beleive in the integrity of Iran-zameen or not?????

Why is it that I have to bear the responsibility of defending the controversial pages of Iran while you and Roozbeh and all our supposed Iranian related "Admins" constantly chicken out at such times? I end up spending WEEKS fighting a full spectrum of aadamaaye ahmagh that wish to see Iran in pieces, condemned, or unfairly portrayed.

Why is it that I have to spend time defending Iran in every goddam dispute (e.g. kordestan, Azarbaijan, Sistan Balchestan, Elam, Safavids, Arabs in Khuzestan, Islamic Conquest of Iran, Jundishapour, Khzestan, gays in Mashad, etc)? I probably have 2000 or more edits just from disputing Iran-haters. My total edits should be close to 9-10 thousand.

If Im wasting and killing time here on WP, it is only because I'm trying to help reverse the widespread stereotype against Iran and Iranians, despite political tendencies.

Know this: Many political decisions are made by judging the waters of popular opinion. I know this because I worked as an interpreter for the likes of Ahmad Khomeini. WP controls popular opinion more than you think. Ive seen its material (on the WP Iranian articles) used directly for articles on Washington Post and other news sources several times. And popular opinion dictates whether or not prevalent stereotypes lead to actions like this. I know the power of the media. I worked in IRIB. WP's Iran related contents get pulled up more than any other source in overall google searches.

The only time Iranian WP admins actually contribute to anything on WP is to slap copyright tags that have no whatsoever legal implications. Or they tell me to be "civil" as you did with this trolling editor Diyako.

SoutherComfort was the only editor here that helped me, and he got into a mess thanx to hurricane katrina. God knows what happened to him.

I expect more from you. WP is not a hobby. I have a seriously demanding professional life. WP is an attempt to affect political decision making at base levels, whether you believe it or not. That's why many of its pages are banned in Iran.--Zereshk 01:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If I were using WP as a "platform for my convictions", things would be very different, since I bitterly oppose the system currently governing Iranian politics and culture. I dont even believe in the modern Shia doctrine of Velayat Faghih. The whole system is rotten to the core. And yet here I am, with close to 10000 edits, trying to fight the stereotype, because it directly affects the lives of both me and you.--Zereshk 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Example: I spent a month fighting gay editors on the Mashad page. Look at what they had on top of the page: [2]. Read the caption of the image. That dispute took a month of my time. Being "calm" and "civil" toned begs for its proper audience. Not idiots who are here either for defamation, or to play games. Taraf e moqaabelet baayad liyaaqat e ehteraamet ro daashteh baasheh.--Zereshk 03:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

West Azerbaijan

That's good to hear. I'll relay that information to the Mediation Committee. Thanks, and happy editing. Tom Lillis 15:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Review

Hi Refdoc, I was wondering if we could get your point of view on a revert war on Baha'i persecution. Thanks -- Jeff3000 04:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

yekee az yekee bad-tar...

I'm a bit worried for User:Striver receiving posts like this. Please keep an eye on this lunatic who calls himself User:Haizum. He seems highly confrontational and rude. Im sure youve seen his spectacle on the Iran talk page (deftly handled by Charles).

Im also gald we reached a balance on the West Azarbaijan page.--Zereshk 09:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

indefinite blocks

G'day Refdoc,

a user from Austin College recently contacted the mailing list requesting an explanation of a block she had received, when she had never edited Wikipedia before. This is fairly common, and a necessary evil of blocking IP addresses; however, the block she was complaining about occurred back in October 2005 ... seems the IP was blocked indefinitely, by you, for a single edit.

Please remember that individual IPs are often used by many different users, and long blocks can harm users who had nothing to do with the original vandalism. I find that blocks of no more than 24 hours (except in extreme cases), and even anywhere from 15 minutes to three hours in the case of AOL users or bored school students, will usually suffice. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

E-sword

Please don't restore deleted articles out of process. E-sword was subject to a deletion review, which may be found here: [3]. At this review, the deletion was endorsed. What are you doing? Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have gone again - I fail to see why these people are so against a short article on what is undoubted a high respected and used peice of software. Apart from the obvious of course. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had some feed back on this on my talk page - purhaps you might like to response with recreation if you can. Let me know and I will see if I can add any refs. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Shia population:

You recently protected[4] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Order of St John

Several months ago you commented on a reorganization of the St John Orders articles. I'm trying to figure it out again, and your help in reaching a consensus is most welcome here. This is an effort to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks a lot.--Eva ^bd 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot

The request for bot approval for that bot was denied, so it won't happen again. —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Simon Moyes

Many thanks for looking at this article. It really needs to go. Preacherdoc 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

...and now it's gone, barely five minutes later. Was that you?Preacherdoc 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

An idea

I addressed some of your concerns on the talk page of Ethnic minorities in Iran. But I have a better idea, why don't you do a complete re-write of the article yourself, the way you think the article should be, and upload your re-write on Refdoc/Ethnic minorities in Iran, then the rest of the editors, from both side, can throughly discuss your preferred version of the article on the talk page and point out specific issues/problems to be amended, in order to reach a compromise and find a common ground. AlexanderPar 08:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Behrooz requesting help

Hi! I saw you were a member of WikiProject Iran, so I thought you might be able to help. A merge between the articles on the Persian names "Behrooz" and "Behrouz" has been proposed, but so far the merge has not been discussed. As I'm not very familiar with Persian names, I thought I'd try to find someone who was, to comment on the proposed merge. Thanks!Lex Kitten 12:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ken Pounds article deletion

I was annoyed to discover that the article on Ken Pounds was deleted for alleged copyright violation without warning. I took some time to make a number of contributions to the article from a range of sources. I'm not pleased to discover that my work has been deleted just because someone else decided to copy a chunk of text into the article.

If I discovered copyright violation in a page that had a history, I would revert it to a point before the violation occurred.

Please can you retrieve the text of the version of this article before the violation took place so that it can be re-worked? JRawle (Talk) 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing worth reverting to prior to the copying. Sorry. Refdoc (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've made a mistake. There was no copyright violaion; rather, the Irish report took the bio on Ken Pounds from Wikipedia. (Of course, that's perfectly legal, with it being under the GFDL.) The report was published in December 2006, yet I wrote the article in summer 2006, as can be seen from the Internet Archive [5].

Not only was the report published after the Wikipedia article, I also took the time to include references, from which I collected the information to write the article. I did my reaearch thoroughly. It's a pity you weren't equally thorough before deciding to delete the article. Seems it wasn't the "blatant copyright violation" you claimed it was.

Now, please can you restore the aticle with its history, if that's possible. If you can't, or if you refuse, I'll re-create it from the archived version. JRawle (Talk) 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I find your remarks extremely offensive. I am a conscientious editor and always take trouble to find information from a number of sources, and provide references at the end of the article. The images that were deleted were uploded a long time ago, when Wikipedia's policies were different. They were uploaded in an attempt to enhance the article they were contained in. Each one had the appropriate copyright notice, e.g. fair use, that was recommended by Wikipedia at the time, and at least one of the photos was only uploaded after I wrote to the person concerned and received permission.

It isn't simply a case of my word, as I have evidence from the Wayback Machine that the article existed on Wikipedia before the Irish scientific report was published.

I am going to go through the deletion review process to get the article reinstated. I may also make a formal complaint about your behaviour through the official channels. It also appears the Irish governmental body in question is in breach of the GFDL, so I will bring that up too. JRawle (Talk) 12:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ken Pounds

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ken Pounds. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JRawle (Talk) 13:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating the article. I in turn accept that you originally deleted the article in good faith. I'm just as amazed that they would copy it straight from Wikipedia - as a result, they have the wrong date for his Royal Astronomical Society presidency, which was corrected later on Wikipedia! I'll add a note about their copyvio to the article's talk page, and why not a mention that he's on the steering committee for that report!

As for those deleted images, it does look bad. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for the last year or so, so there isn't much else on my talk page. So those images are all listed one after another. I'll probably add a notice explaining out why they had to be deleted now. Regards, JRawle (Talk) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, before I create a new talk page, could you bring back the old talk page too? Was there even anything on it (other than living person's bio template, etc.)? Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 23:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

including the rare distinction of an honorary degree from his own institution

I think those were my own words. The idea of it being a rare distinction was actually something that was discussed when another scientist at Leicester, Sir Alec Jeffreys, received an honorary degree. So perhaps it's not so rare. Funnily enough, the university have also taken content from this article, including the "rare distinction" part but otherwise reworded a bit, for a bio for the 2008 alumni association lecture. [6] JRawle (Talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro Iranian regime edits

By protecting the page of Maryam Rajavi you have reverted to a version which is not correct. For example the use of the word " MKO" which is only used as I had explained before, by Ayatollah Khomeini and the current regime. The proper name for this group is PMOI or MEK. So by keeping this version (MKO) and this terminology, it is rather insulting to many supporters of this movement. You should also carefully see what these pro Iranian regime users such as CreazySuit and BoogaLouie are doing to this Wikipedia before making such protections. Regards, Tom Tom davy (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mojahedin Khalgh - Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mojahedin Khalgh - Logo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Inspection Team

As far as I can tell, he did stop after receiving the warnings. (Though his response was, obviously less-than-collegial in tone.) I am periodically checking on the situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey vote request

Please vote in survey over whether to include text in History of the the Islamic Republic of Iran

Text and dispute is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=274961453&oldid=274952179

Arguements

found in edit summary and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Deletion_by_KneeJuan

Thank you --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD nomination of Mohammad Hashem Cheshti

A tag has been placed on Mohammad Hashem Cheshti requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hekerui (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mohammad Hashem Cheshti

I have nominated Mohammad Hashem Cheshti, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Hashem Cheshti. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ustad Hashim.jpg

Please make sure that an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, so the permission can be verified. For the email you can use this template. Hekerui (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I put a note on the picture for a request for permission. Hekerui (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Refdoc,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.34.167 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony Schumacher

Hallo, Please remember to go and fix the incoming links which previously led to the drag racer and now lead to the disambiguation page. As the person who made the moves, it's your responsibility. Thanks. PamD 11:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there aren't any to fix now. But this version of the page had a template reporting incoming links, and that was what I saw which made me look for (and see) incoming links, so someone must have cleaned them up since this morning. PamD 23:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looking at 12:16 to 12:28 you can see that Woohookitty fixed the links which you had left pointing to the disambiguation page! PamD 23:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's what I like to do around here :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Refdoc. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Refdoc.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Refdoc. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Refdoc. 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)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 12 years ago...

Wishing Refdoc a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Refdoc. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Refdoc. 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)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Turkic dynasties and countries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Turkic dynasties and countries 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/List of Turkic dynasties and countries 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.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)