User talk:BarcrMac

Tip of the moment... Upgrade Recent Changes in my preferences Have you tried the Advanced options in your Recent changes user preferences settings? It requires a modern browser to work and is disabled by default. Unlike the normal "recent changes" page, these options can summarize edits to the same page and let you dynamically expand and collapse the list items. For multiple edits to the same page, it also provides a single "changes" link which will show you a view of the differences (diffs) between these combined edits and the last non-recent revision. After changing the Advanced options, the "Recent changes" list takes effect immediately and can be reversed by unchecking any option. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more: Help:Recent changes   m:Help:Recent changes   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BarcrMac. 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

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]

BLP editing

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Despite the above saying that this does not imply any issues with your contributions, you, on Talk:Linda Sarsour, attributed a statement to her that she never made and the sources you cited do not support. Please do not make up quotes in the future. Thank you. nableezy - 15:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nableezy, sorry I mixed up "Zionism" with "Judaism" (I explained on the article's talk page that I did this because the Start article's title said "The leaders of the American Women’s March have spoken: Jews are unwelcome on the feminist left"). Instead of accusing me of "making up quotes", why not just correct me if I misrepresent or misquote a particular word? Barca (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You put in quotation marks something she has never said, and then followed that with "according to Sarsour". How else would I describe attributing a made up quote to somebody? You misread? Ok, thats fine, just be more careful when attributing quotes to people. nableezy - 16:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mhhossein ^talk 10:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"what they're actually saying is that your bludgeoning has become hysterical — not that you're necessarily a hysterical person". Barca (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly, it isn't the most civil thing to say..."[same diff]. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it isn't the most civil thing to say. But I don't know how you went from that to an "attack" against you. My comment was on your editing pattern, not on you (as El_C said). Barca (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack is not the only thing editors should avoid. Civility matters and it's a great improvement you admit your comment was not, let's say, "the most civil thing to say". Regards, --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that civility matters, as I'm hoping you've become aware that your bludgeoning of the talk page was not helpful. Regards. Barca (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the reverse. The other parties were bludgeoning the process. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were bludgeoning the process, this is why I mentioned you, which was not a personal attack or uncivil or anything else except a comment on your method of participation. Please learn to work with others Barca (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four of Diamonds

Hey! I noticed you just added a message of support for the move of

talk) 18:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

MEK is under 'consensus required' restriction

Hey, your edit is a breach of

the recent restriction of the page made by El C after users agreed upon it. Please be careful for next edits. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This edit is another violation of the restriction. Please preform a self revert or there should be an admin action. You had to gain consensus before restoring an already removed material. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian politics general sanctions notice

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.

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.

A barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Just a little token of my gratitude for your kind words about Chérubin!Niggle1892 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A guess

Hello! Was this a result of your cat stepping on the keyboard?

talk) 02:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Heads up

Hi Barca, Thanks for your edits on the MEK page recently, they have been very helpful as that article has been under a lot of problematic editing lately. Just wanted to give you a heads-up to paraphrase and quote from sources as much as possible to avoid any copy-vio issues. Thanks again.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stefka, yes I noticed this was an issue. Will you fix and add the copy righted material that has been removed? There is also a discussion about a New York Times source you added ([1]), would be good to have your thoughts. Barca (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barca: I'm going to take a break from editing the MEK page, will also avoid participating in its talk page discussions. I'm disappointed on how things are being handled in some of these pages (see this for instance), and feel my efforts have become futile there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

We welcome participation in AfD discussions but users should only use policy based arguments. Please see

WP:AADD for more information and advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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 05:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's chat

Hello. It appears we have disagreements on what to include in

this article. I think at the end of the day, both of us will have to forget about some of the things we want to see in the article while keeping some other items included in the article. Therefore, I suggest we come up with a list of the items that we want to be included or removed and find a middle ground before conducting the actual edit. To show good faith I restored the version of the article you originally edited back in December 9th.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Kazemita1, if you have good faith, you should not be reverting your edits back into the article ([2]), ([3]), which in your edit summaries you said that I had agreed to those changes, but this is not true. Barca (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your last edit on December 9th, right before the edit warring started, in which you consented to the addition of the following statements:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

Please, note that you did not edit the article any further for two days after that and one would naturally think this is a sign of consent. Two days later, on Dec. 11th when me, Ypatch and Emilcioran were all blocked and could not comment on any of your edits you deleted the above mentioned statements. You are now trying to present the facts as if I cheated. To show you further evidence, here is Emilcioran's edit and Ypatche's edit -who even though were opposing my edit- all included the above mentioned statements. In other words I am trying to say there is consensus on the version of the article I restored after recovery from block. And finally this is the diff between my edit right after recovery from block and your last edit on Dec. 9th that shows they are the same word for word. Of course, you knew all of that.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

article ban is likely due with the next violation. You were asked to engage the discussion first, which you failed to do. Your impatience has consequences. 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 17:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

Your appeal is moot because this block has expired. MER-C 08:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you -for the second time - to think over my proposal. Let's list the things we want to be added/removed from the article. As a starting point I am asking you and @Mhhossein: to both revert your edits for which you both were blocked. (I mean after your block is over). To expedite the matter you may express your opinion here in your talk page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein was not blocked. That's because they actually made an effort to substantiate on the content front, albeit rather too briefly for my liking. And because BarcrMac is now blocked, they can't really collaborate with you on the article on-wiki, using their user talk page as a proxy. Their usage of their talk page has to be limited to an unblock request only. El_C 02:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @El C: for letting me know.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 22 March 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) 08:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are

People's Mujahedin of Iran

, broadly construed, for 3 months.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

community-authorized discretionary sanction in this area. Please read the banning policy

to ensure you understand what this means.

You may appeal this sanction at any time either to me personally or to the

administrator noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• I've made the need to be careful with sources abundantly clear, but your latest post is still playing fast and loose with the sources. You ten sources to support the claim that "The Iranian clerical government continuingly targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters". Of these, the first is an editorial from a dodgy source that refers to the torture of a couple of supporters only in their voice; the second refers to alleged attacks against members; the fourth talks of the MEK being a target of assassination; the fifth talks of a single person; the sixth talks of people who explicitly denied a connection with the MEK, and refers to charges that may or may not have a connection to the MEK; the seventh and eighth talk of incidents occurring decades ago; the ninth only confirms the death of one individual, and attributes the rest to the MEK; the tenth doesn't refer to current supporters, but to relatives of political opponents killed in the 80s. The only source which may be acceptable is the fourth, and you've provided no way of verifying that one. In short, you're engaging in forbidden
  WP:BANEX only allows you to discuss the ban itself; you may not discuss the conduct of other editors in relation to the MEK, nor can you discuss the topic in general while your ban is in place. I would recommend that you not appeal the ban, and instead that you focus on content in slightly less contentious areas, where you can demonstrate that you are being careful in your use of sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Mhhossein: I am not hounding you. I've been very involved in articles related to protests in Iran: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and so on... You should be warned to stop falsely accusing other editors, which is battleground behavior. Barca (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, what article are you referring to here? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You had zero edits to

2018 Khuzestan protests. I am talking about this weird comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I linked the

2017–18 Iranian protests to the 2019–2020 Iranian protests, and it has been on my watchlist ever since (like most protests in Iran, a scope I've shown an interest in). Barca (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not seeing a hounding issue here, but Mhhossein is correct in saying that comment makes little sense, and comes across as reflexive opposition. If you oppose the merger and want your opinion given weight, you're going to have to elaborate more than that, Barca. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood Mhhossein's proposal. I thought it was about merging

2018 Khuzestan protests article, something that would not make any sense. I corrected it now. That still does not explain Mhhossein's false "hounding" accusations. Barca (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! MarioGom (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do my best to fill the edit summary field. Thanks for letting me know. Barca (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that you have been added as involved party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 17, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require assistance. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the open Iranian politics arbitration case, a number of remedies and finding of facts have been proposed, some of which relate to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• (i) The community-authorized general sanctions for
  arbitration enforcement log.

  (v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

  (vi) Administrators who have enforced the Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard
  .
• Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to take appropriate actions (pursuant to the
  Requests for Comments
  (RfC). These actions may include, but are not limited to:
  • moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute,
  • word and/or diff limits on all RfC participants,
  • bans on editors who have disrupted consensus-finding from participation in a particular RfC, and
  • sectioned commenting rules in RfCs.
• topic-banned
  from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• topic-banned
  from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Mhhossein (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• People's Mujahedin of Iran
  (MEK), broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• topic-banned
  from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Vice regent (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics closed