Hello Saff V.,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing from certain pages (People's Mujahedin of Iran and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned you several times about the need to edit collaboratively at the page about the MEK. While none of the editors there have demonstrated particularly good behavior, your edit warring over content that did not have consensus, and your inability or unwillingness to understand the page restrictions, suggest you need a break from that page. When you reported another editor to ANEW, you were reminded that the article had a consensus required restriction; then you chose to violate it anyway, with some extremely wiki-lawyerish arguments on the talk page. Please demonstrate an ability to work constructively and collaboratively on other related articles, otherwise I will likely expand this block to a topic-ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Yes, I should have observed the consensus required and I really did in previous cases. Also, please review ALL of MY edits on 19 February in MEK. Ypatch was roll backing all my changes. Some of them were removal of duplicated things. I promise to be more careful about observing this restriction and give me another chance. Please take a look at my constructive contributions. Indef block for the first time during my editing history was very sever here Saff V. (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is generally inappropriate. See WP:GAB; you are expected to talk about your inappropriate actions, not those of other editors. You can demonstrate constructive contributions and the ability to resolve disputes by editing other articles appropriately for a period of time, then requesting this block be re-reviewed. Yamla (talk) 11:37, 21 February 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.

I will let another admin judge this unblock request, but in opinion Saff V. will benefit from a break from People's Mujahedin of Iran. The violation of the restriction was the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the indef block is only from editing the named articles, you can still edit other articles freely. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: What is the difference between me and they? I ask for change the indef block to temporary period such as others.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's different is that you are now partially blocked after being under a brief restriction previously. I am evaluating the block in front of me. You need to do as you have been asked, "Please demonstrate an ability to work constructively and collaboratively on other related articles". 331dot (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ms96. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You wrongfully deleted correct, cited info in this edit. Further disruptive edits will not be tolerated. MS 会話 16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms96 , You just with 220 edits in English Wikipedia need to study wiki policies more carefully. I explained my reason for removing the material in edit summary "is n't supported by the source". But you reverted it with no reason. You have to know that only mentioning "disruptive edit" is n't enough. The WP:REVEXP asked editors to provide a valid and informative explanation for reverting. I started a discussion and gave more explanations in the article's TP.Saff V. (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, I'm recommending that this ongoing block be temporarily extended to protect references to the People's Mujahedin of Iran in other articles (such as, currently, at 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran (where Saff V is again edit-warring [1] to remove sourced material after being advised not to last month by MS, see above), and perhaps even more broadly, per your discretion, against the removal of any sourced section in any Iran-related article.--2601:444:380:8C00:359D:C736:4319:AD76 (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC) <just.another.IP.user>[reply]

Something goes wrong here.A know how IP failed to add materials from the website of NCR (MEK). I am blocked from editing the MEK page.Saff V. (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V., the comment by the IP is disingenuous and I'm going to ignore it, but edits like this one concern me somewhat; the source you removed was not an opinion piece (ie, it was reliable) and therefore it probably deserved a talk page discussion. The edit before that [2] is also concerning; the material you removed was similar to that of a different paragraph, but it was presented very differently, and you also removed a source. I'm going to let another admin deal with your unblock request, but you really need to tread more carefully, because as far as I am concerned you're getting closer to a TBAN from Iranian topics. For the avoidance of doubt, "tread more carefully" means discussing contentious material, not edit-warring when discussion is ongoing, and explaining every edit clearly and completely. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: For this edit I just followed WP:BRD, which doesn't ask to start a discussion for the first step, it just says to be BOLD! In addition, this case seems to me like this one which we decided to remove it. As I wrote in the edit summary, the material was problematic not the source. For this edit, You are an admin and are more familiar with policies. I am sure you don't want this minor view occupies spaces of the article which make undue weight issue. You warn me to be Tban because I removed this detail "inside a hospital showing footage of multiple body bags piling up" while the important aspect of that news ( the death number in Iran is much higher or arresting him) is repeated in other sections of article related to Ahwaze. I just followed WP:BRD.Saff V. (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was asked to practice collaboration with other editors.I tried to work with editors. For instance, see my contributions to this page. I opened some talk page discussions and tried to resolve the disputes.Saff V. (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Look, your partial block is not going to be lifted until you are able to demonstrate (with deeds not words) that you are able to edit in the IPOL topic area, for a sustained amount of time, without similar problems occuring otherwise. So please stop asking. It's an exercise in futility at this point to do so. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:11, 9 March 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.

Reviewing admin, please see my comment above. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MS 会話 15:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really, a uw-disruptive1 template? You couldn't just take a few minutes to write out what the actual problem is? El_C 15:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you did it twice, I see above. These are not what these warning templates are for, Ms96. That is not how content disputes are resolved. El_C 15:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:El_C, I understand your concerns but please also check other edits by this user, on 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak for instance. Also, have you forgotten this user's lies whose mother tongue is Persian? MS 会話 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ms96 blocked for personal attacks. El_C 15:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which edits of me would be disruptive. @El C: I have to report that the blocked user accused me to be connected with Iran's government that is the subject of casting aspersions.Saff V. (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]