Göycen

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

As previously advised, you are not allowed to edit these topics until you have reached 500 edits and 30 days on your account. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill,

That message was not meant for me; it was a mistake (please see Talk:Caucasian_dragon_carpets), and I am deleting it.

My edits are not targeting anyone or any ethnicity, and I am not adding any information. I was simply reverting. You can check my edits. If, as a user reverting the edits of a vandalist IP address, there is a problem, I do not know what to say. Göycen (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As a WP:CTOP arbitration remedy, I have removed your extended-confirmed status indefinitely due to WP:GAMING behavior to reach EC in an editing spree which included several disruptive page-moves. You may appeal this no sooner than 3 months at my talk page or WP:AN. I would also advise you to familiarize yourself with WP:TITLE, and that correcting your erroneous moves will be considered positively upon appeal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Rosguill,

I do not undertand the last change you have done? What is against wikipedia policy? What kind of gamind I did, besides reverting same ip adress? Which thanks to me in last 20 days countles puppets of it detected. I have traced each of their changes and reported. Since extended confirmation I only reverted the changes from same account again.

I will definetely check WP:TITLE, because none of my moves was on intention of bending wikipedia policy. I updated many templates from Turkish wikipedia on last hours. Before moving pages i checked many other pages for the writing style. Could you please exactly tell me what kind of mistake i did. What exactly is wrong? Göycen (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You engaged in behavior clearly attempting to game the system by rapidly making unnecessary edits in order to unlock extended-confirmed status and continue editing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict topics. Descriptions of such behavior to be avoided were included in links from the original notice that you received. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand it, and I had no intention of misusing it. My aim, of course, is to revert disruptive changes from that person, and I always try not to introduce bias with my edits. I see people are watching my edits, but they have no intention of correcting information, even about their projects. For me, this is not over. As I stated, I am here to learn and try not to make the same mistakes again. I try to get a third opinion as much as I can.

After seeing that problem in Turkish pages (since every other Wikipedia has the district name after neighborhoods and villages, and most of the newly created pages have the district name afterwards, not every Turkish village has wikipedia page yet in English wikipedia, but village names are quite similar since most of them were named after the republic), I couldn't exactly find a reason in the bar, which is why I have chosen misspelling (which is not exactly true but the best fit among others). I admit that I liked finding this many changes that need to be done, and I can reach extended confimration.

If you have time, could you possibly show me the exact guide about this topic and why I shouldn't add district names even if there is only one of them in Wikipedia? Göycen (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In case of future talks, I would like to state this one more time: the records are there. Once more, regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict topics, I did not revert any Wikipedia users' or bot changes (extended confirmed or not). Göycen (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:PLACEDAB. We don't have further specific guidance for Turkey, unfortunately. But more generally than that guideline, we don't disambiguate page titles unless we actually need to in order to differentiate from other existing articles. More precise, disambiguated titles do however make valid redirects to the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Here is the guideline used in Turkish wikipedia and it is as same as what i did. I intended to ensure consistency and accuracy. Most of the village pages in english wikipedia already follow this naming style, and my aim was to correct inconsistencies across related articles.

In my process, I added links to locations lacking Wikipedia pages to facilitate future article development and help distinguish these when they are created. I used the automatic redirect function during page moves to maintain link integrity and navigational ease but still it is not clear.

I can only say that making a lot of edits for a purpose can create bias, which I understand, but I still do not have a clue about the Turkish naming. This results in the following scenario: in the future, if a person comes here and creates their village's page by naming it without adding the district to the title, that page will stay that way eternally until another village with same name appears on Wikipedia. Shouldn't there be some consistency and style? Göycen (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict topics, I did not revert any Wikipedia users' or bot changes"

But you did.[1][2][3][4] And GS/AA isn’t just about NK conflict articles, it covers a wide range of topics related to AA. But even then, these are clearly NK conflict edits. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, you are in the wrong place. 2 things that you wrote are different topics. We already discussed those changes, when you first reported me. Writing it to another place does not make you more legitimate. As a defender of policies(like all of us) what do you think about the edits of fellow @Archives908? Göycen (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You claimed "regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict topics, I did not revert any Wikipedia users' or bot changes", I showed it's clearly not the case and isn't even the only topic under GS/AA. Just be aware of what you say. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Please leave this topic. I do not have time for this discussion. Check who are those people in your examples, they are all same person with different ips. ip adresses are not users in that sentence. Göycen (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a sanction

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

You have been blocked for 48 hours. You are now subject to an indefinite topic ban from all pages and edits related to politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide.

You have been sanctioned incivility and battleground conduct (see evidence presented at this ANI discussion).

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that topic. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

you asked me to write it on talk page and i wrote it there. what do you expect me to write? i am obviously right in this topic but i do not know what is wrong with you admins? Person is obviously removing sourced content. i have written same thing 3 times but noone obviously bothered to check if edits fit rule or not. that person hasn't even bothered to answer my questions. of course i demand and he is pov pushing. you can see how ethic they are in turkish alphabets talk page.

once more i have not reverted anything which was created by a user but vandal ip adresses. i have contributed protection of those sanctions more than those 2 uncooperative users. Göycen (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is your inability to see how your actions have violated policy and guidelines. In a contentious topic like this one, non-adherence to policy is sanctioned more quickly and heavily, as you were warned. I encourage you to edit in a less contentious topic, so that you can learn more about the norms here. To answer your specific question: your edits violated the talk page guidelines, which say

Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.

Since the comments were repeated and unevidenced, they were aspersions. They continued a pattern of incivility that led to—and continued through—the ANI discussion.

If you want to continue editing here, you need to change your approach. If you want to edit in the AA topic space again, you should demonstrate in other areas that your approach has changed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your topic ban, as you did at Talk:Azerbaijan State Academic Opera and Ballet Theater. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? I do not understand what the issue is. Have you ever taken the time to check those edits? What I did was correct the tone of my text. Do you find this rational at all? You're simply hiding behind silly rules. I have not made any disruptive edits on those topics until now. @Firefangledfeathers Göycen (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I checked your edits. The issue is that you are not permitted to make those edits, and you did so anyway. Do you not see how those edits are covered by your topic ban? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers You may want to check the edits I've been discussing on talk pages and ANI for the past week. Believe me it wouldn't take, too long. There was no need to take these things further and waste the time of myself, you, and other editors. Göycen (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It was my review of those edits, as well as the evidence presented at ANI, that led to the initial block and TBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I am done with this wiki. Have a good one. Göycen (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to appeal my recent block from editing on Wikipedia. I understand that blocks are implemented to prevent damage or disruption to the platform, and I would like to clarify the nature of my actions that led to this block.

My recent activities were focused on correcting the tone of my comments on talk pages, not on editing article content. I have not made any disruptive edits to pages; my intention was solely to paraphrase and improve the tone of my previous comments. I believe that asking for clarifications and reasons for edits on talk pages is within my right and is a part of healthy discourse on Wikipedia.

I feel that my block may have been issued without a thorough review of the context and nature of my edits. It appears that my efforts to engage constructively and seek clarifications were misunderstood as disruptive behavior. This situation seems to contradict the principles of freedom of speech and the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

I assure you that I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies. I will continue to use talk pages appropriately, engage in constructive discussions, and ensure that my contributions align with Wikipedia’s standards.

Specifically, I will:

1. Respectfully seek clarifications and engage in consensus-building on talk pages.

1. Avoid any behavior that could be perceived as disruptive.

1. Focus on making positive, well-informed contributions to the Wikipedia community.

I believe that my actions were in good faith and aimed at improving communication and understanding within the community. I am eager to continue contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner and to uphold the integrity of the platform.

Thank you for considering my request. I hope to demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia’s guidelines and to positively contributing to the community.

Sincerely,

Göycen (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We do not consider chatbot-generated unblock requests. By the way, there is no free speech on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My involvement was limited to refining the communication on talk pages, not disrupt them. Göycen (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not relevant. Yamla (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Göycen, since this block is a general sanctions enforcement action, you should not use the unblock template. The directions for an appeal are in the block template above. You won't be able to edit WP:AN directly, but I (and any other talk page watchers) can copy your appeal over, as well as any responses. I urge you to read WP:GAB, and consider how to phrase the unblock request so that it explains the situation to AN participants who aren't familiar with the history of this dispute. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)